The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Rodrik: "Why Nation-States Are Good"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Aeon:

Why nation-states are good
The nation-state remains the best foundation for capitalism, and hyper-globalisation risks destroying it

Dani Rodrik
is the Ford Foundation professor of international political economy at the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He was previously the Albert O Hirschman professor in the school of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton (2013-2015) and is president-elect of the International Economic Association. His new book is Straight Talk on Trade: Ideas for a Sane World Economy (Princeton University Press, 2017).

The populist revolt of our day reflects the deep rift that has opened between the worldview of the global intellectual and professional elites, and that of ordinary citizens. These two groups now live in parallel social worlds and orient themselves using different cognitive maps. Yet the intellectual consensus that brought us to this chasm remains intact. Proposed remedies among mainstream thought leaders rarely go beyond an invocation of the problem of inequality, and a bit more focus on compensating the losers.

But the problem lies deeper, in elites’ attachment to a globalist mindset that underplays and weakens the nation-state. Without a shift, we might find not only our open global economy, but also our liberal, democratic order swept away by the backlash wrought by the blind spots and excesses of this mindset.

Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates. Most often, it is regarded as ineffectual – morally irrelevant, or even reactionary – in the face of the challenges posed by globalisation. Economists and centrist politicians tend to view globalism’s recent setbacks as regrettable, fuelled by populist and nativist politicians who managed to capitalise on the grievances of those who feel they have been left behind and deserted by the globalist elites. Last October, the British prime minister Theresa May ignited an outcry when she disparaged the idea of global citizenship. ‘If you believe you’re a citizen of the world,’ she said, ‘you’re a citizen of nowhere.’ …

Historically, the nation-state has been closely associated with economic, social and political progress. It has curbed internecine violence, expanded networks of solidarity beyond the local, spurred mass markets and industrialisation, enabled the mobilisation of human and financial resources, and fostered the spread of representative political institutions. Failed nation-states usually bring economic decline and civil war. Among intellectuals, the nation-state’s fall from grace is in part a consequence of its achievements. For residents of stable and prosperous countries, the nation-state’s vital role has become easy to overlook.

The world more or less has reached the “broad, sunlit uplands” that Churchill talked about in his “finest hour” speech in 1940. Advanced countries don’t go to war with each other anymore, obesity is becoming more of a problem than hunger, and so forth. It would be stupid to take the system of nationalism under which this has been achieved and blow it up out of boredom and malice.

 
Hide 201 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. eah says:

    In polite discourse (as here), ‘nation-state’ means civic nationalism, not ethno-nationalism.

    Entirely unrelated, you nasty bigots.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /isteve/rodrik-why-nation-states-are-good/#comment-2103936
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. The world more or less has reached the “broad, sunlit uplands” that Churchill talked about in his “finest hour” speech in 1940. Advanced countries don’t go to war with each other anymore, obesity is becoming more of a problem than hunger, and so forth. It would be stupid to take the system of nationalism under which this has been achieved and blow it up out of boredom and malice.

    It’s a point of constant fascination for me that you are able to write such contradictory gibberish yet seem to have not lapsed into early onset dementia.

    Read More
    • Troll: TheBoom, Hail
    • Replies: @Demented Gibberer
    It’s a point of constant fascination for me that you are able to write such contradictory gibberish yet seem to have not lapsed into early onset dementia.

    It's a point of complete indifference for me that you are able to write such meaningless blather yet seem to have provided no indication of what exactly you're referring to, much less evidence to back it up.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    It’s a point of constant fascination for me that you are able to write such contradictory gibberish yet seem to have not lapsed into early onset dementia.
     
    Whereas you, OTOH, leave us wondering. Are your comments explicable only as a result of dementia, or does your hydrophobia explain it?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Yan Shen says:

    Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates.

    Isn’t a belief in the primacy of the nation-state the mainstream view in East Asia? Of course we’re talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.

    I’ve long been saying that in a country where blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart, the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh Lee Kuan Yew descended from the heavens to mete out some sense and discipline.

    Read More
    • Troll: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @rogue-one
    >invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense

    Invade the world, invite the world has been the principle of every empire since the Romans. The US acts more like an empire than a nation state or even a state.
    , @Chrisnonymous
    My favorite nation-state in Asia is Tibet...

    Protip: nation-states don't print their money with upwards of 5 scripts.

    I’ve long been saying that in [the USA], the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh [Chinese man] descended from the heavens to [be in charge].
     
    Like your immigration stance, your oh-so-rational proposal conveniently ends up with your own ethnic group taking over the USA. As long as we're fantasizing solutions for the white-NAM problem in the US, let's posit that the greatest thing that could ever happen would be if a law were passed that revoked the citizenship of everyone who immigrated since 1990, immigration laws were enforced, and the culture went back to not valorizing blacks. That's all that would need to happen.

    You and Jack "I'm-against-immigration-except-for-smart-Russians-who-happen-to-be-comprised-of-many-Jews-and-hey-what-do-you-know-my-family-is-Russian-Jews" D. should put your heads together and find a less transparent way of promoting yourselves.
    , @TheBoom
    Lee Kuan Yew's outlook is shared not the not by every nation in Asia but by pretty much every nation outside of western white ones. Diversity + proximity has usually equalled war and unless the diversity is on low ebb. Singapore can portray itself as a peaceful multicultural society because they still adhere to LKY's advice and keep the country overwhelmingly Chinese.
    , @Third world nationalist
    Lee Kuan Yew was an advocate of mass migration. It is mostly because of his foreign talent policy that Singapore is overcrowded and filled with foreigners.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIeIzGt8rQ0

    , @RadicalCenter
    Well, here he should be one of our own people, named Johnson or Schroeder or Leclaire or Vitelli or such, but I see your point ;)
    , @Sean
    When there was a fuss about a Westerner getting caned, Lee Kuan Yew said in the Far East the individual is an ant, but in the West he is a child of God
    , @silviosilver

    Of course we’re talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.
     
    Here you scorn the very principle that enabled you to become an "American" in the first place.

    That is interesting, given that you're normally advising Americans about the urgent need to import many millions more Asiatics like yourself.

    , @Twinkie

    blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart
     
    https://youtu.be/mMvkusAI9DM
    , @unpc downunder
    America is a populist nation rather than an authoritarian one. In the spirit of colonial populism it needs a new form of populist democracy which reduces rather than increases racial conflict. The first thing to do is to make sure voters have a direct influence over immigration policy.
    , @Anonymous
    Are you thick? You keep posting the same old crap. Do you believe everything you read in the mainstream media? Do you realize it's not necessarily true? Why do you keep posting this video?
    , @britishbrainsize1325cclol
    That chinese boy needs a little bit of humbling, naive kid because of kpop being big in the east and him probably getting some attention from the girls dont realise he is burning some bridges and destroying the goodwill that KPOP has given him from the ladies,I hope he realises soon those people he was berating are on the same side as him , and who the hell is lee kuan yew , brtshit descended people like him because he has an ugly low brow english accent and speaks well of him and publicisze him otherwise you would not have heard of his ugly ass.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. rogue-one says:
    @Yan Shen

    Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates.
     
    Isn't a belief in the primacy of the nation-state the mainstream view in East Asia? Of course we're talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.

    I've long been saying that in a country where blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart, the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh Lee Kuan Yew descended from the heavens to mete out some sense and discipline.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    >invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense

    Invade the world, invite the world has been the principle of every empire since the Romans. The US acts more like an empire than a nation state or even a state.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon7
    The United States acts more like an empire...


    One of the oft-repeated phenomena of great empires is the influx of foreigners to the capital city. Roman historians often complain of the number of Asians and Africans in Rome. Baghdad, in its prime in the ninth century, was international in its population— Persians, Turks, Arabs, Armenians, Egyptians, Africans and Greeks mingled in its streets.

    In London today, Cypriots, Greeks, Italians, Russians, Africans, Germans and Indians jostle one another on the buses and in the underground, so that it sometimes seems difficult to find any British. The same applies to New York, perhaps even more so...

    The original conquering race is often to be found in relative purity in rural districts and on far frontiers. It is the wealth of the great cities which draws the immigrants. As, with the growth of industry, cities nowadays achieve an ever greater preponderance over the countryside, so will the influence of foreigners increasingly dominate old empires.

    The Fate of Nations (published 1976), John Glubb

     
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. @Yan Shen

    Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates.
     
    Isn't a belief in the primacy of the nation-state the mainstream view in East Asia? Of course we're talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.

    I've long been saying that in a country where blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart, the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh Lee Kuan Yew descended from the heavens to mete out some sense and discipline.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    My favorite nation-state in Asia is Tibet…

    Protip: nation-states don’t print their money with upwards of 5 scripts.

    I’ve long been saying that in [the USA], the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh [Chinese man] descended from the heavens to [be in charge].

    Like your immigration stance, your oh-so-rational proposal conveniently ends up with your own ethnic group taking over the USA. As long as we’re fantasizing solutions for the white-NAM problem in the US, let’s posit that the greatest thing that could ever happen would be if a law were passed that revoked the citizenship of everyone who immigrated since 1990, immigration laws were enforced, and the culture went back to not valorizing blacks. That’s all that would need to happen.

    You and Jack “I’m-against-immigration-except-for-smart-Russians-who-happen-to-be-comprised-of-many-Jews-and-hey-what-do-you-know-my-family-is-Russian-Jews” D. should put your heads together and find a less transparent way of promoting yourselves.

    Read More
    • LOL: bomag
    • Replies: @Yan Shen
    No, contrary to popular opinion here I'm not pushing for any particular immigrant group to take over the United States. Generally speaking I support the nation-state and consider myself a traditional nationalist. I think countries should exist first and foremost for the benefit of their own citizens. I don't think the United States particularly needs more immigrants, but if we are going to let people in, it might as well be based on a sane immigration policy favoring skilled immigrants. Various other countries such as Canada, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. have such immigration policies in place.

    Chinese Americans are something like 5 million out of the 320 million plus people in this country, so we're talking about barely more than 1.5% of the entire population, which seems pretty minimal to me. Even more so when you consider the large base population of over 1380 million from which this population is drawn from. This idea that Chinese Americans are overwhelming America may have something to do with the disproportionate impact that Chinese Americans have in this country in quantitative academic and STEM areas, more so than their actual underlying numbers, which as I've pointed out are fairly small.

    Since I live in the United States, I would rather not see the country turn to shit by virtue of blacks, Hispanics and whites basically tearing each other apart and lighting the entire thing on fire. So I've simply advocated for adopting some common sense and discipline that traditionally has tended to be embodied by our East Asian neighbors across the Pacific.

    , @Anonymous

    let’s posit that the greatest thing that could ever happen would be if a law were passed that revoked the citizenship of everyone who immigrated since 1990, immigration laws were enforced, and the culture went back to not valorizing blacks. That’s all that would need to happen.
     
    True enough, probably, though I'd change the date to 1965 because that's really when the nation-wrecking legislation known as Hart-Celler was enacted. That's really the watershed dividing the America That Was from the mess we now have.

    Hart-Celler is really the most fundamentally treasonous legislation ever passed in this or any other country. It declared, in the name of the self-styled elites, "we don't like these Americans or the way they vote, so we'll simply replace them and not incidentally lower the wages of the working classes until Americans can't compete anyway."

    Nation wrecking. It's almost enough to give a tiny, manipulative tribe a bad reputation. And this is why control of the flow of information must be maintained at all costs.

    , @BenKenobi
    Better make it 1965.

    Yes I would be willing to fix a bayonet.

    Di.


    Di.

    Mau.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. TheBoom says:
    @Yan Shen

    Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates.
     
    Isn't a belief in the primacy of the nation-state the mainstream view in East Asia? Of course we're talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.

    I've long been saying that in a country where blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart, the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh Lee Kuan Yew descended from the heavens to mete out some sense and discipline.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    Lee Kuan Yew’s outlook is shared not the not by every nation in Asia but by pretty much every nation outside of western white ones. Diversity + proximity has usually equalled war and unless the diversity is on low ebb. Singapore can portray itself as a peaceful multicultural society because they still adhere to LKY’s advice and keep the country overwhelmingly Chinese.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Jason Liu says:

    I don’t like the appeal to economics. The primary reason for nation-states is that it allows differentiation between peoples, thus creating hierarchy, tribalism and competition among humanity. This should be followed regardless of economics.

    The reason the far left screams about “No Borders” is because they fear conflict and thus want to drag us back to the communal, egalitarian muck. That sentiment fuels globalism on the ground. The capitalists who want globalism for greater profit are very few in comparison.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    The members of the Davos-gatherings for example are pro internationalism, and they - at least in my view - represent the (developed) wolrd's economical and political elite, don't they?
    , @L Woods
    I don’t think the ideological bloc that works incessantly to foment ethnic and (to a far lesser extent these days) strife is averse to conflict. The left is against the nation-state because it produces a particular set of winners and losers in which they are not at the top.
    , @silviosilver

    The reason the far left screams about “No Borders” is because they fear conflict and thus want to drag us back to the communal, egalitarian muck.
     
    Fearing conflict - or desiring to minimize its likelihood - hardly requires "communal, egalitarian muck."
    , @Orwellian State

    The reason the far left screams about “No Borders” is because they fear conflict and thus want to drag us back to the communal, egalitarian muck.
     
    The reason the far left wants open borders is because they are all Jewish and there's nothing Jews fear more than united white power. In a nation of all or mostly whites, Jews are at the bottom of the totem pole. But in a multicultural country, there will be constant division as white power is diluted, and Jews can be at the top.
    , @Ian M.

    I don’t like the appeal to economics. The primary reason for nation-states is that it allows differentiation between peoples, thus creating hierarchy, tribalism and competition among humanity. This should be followed regardless of economics.
     
    Agreed that economics should be subordinated to the nation. And even more importantly, to the family. We should be asking not which economic policies generate greater economic growth, but which economic policies support the stability and integrity of the nation and family.

    Regarding the primary reason you give for nation-states, the nation-state is not the only way to achieve differentiation among peoples, hierarchy, etc., and this was not the primary reason the nation-state developed. The nation-state is largely a late modern-age phenomenon, but this didn't prevent the ancients and medievals and early moderns from still having differentiation and hierarchy. The early nation-state actually acted to flatten hierarchy and differentiation (it started off as a liberal project, after all).

    However, today nation-states are the primary way in which the world's governments and peoples are organized. It is therefore one of our primary objects of loyalty and one of the sources of unity and authority for a people, so for that reason, we should work to maintain it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Yan Shen says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    My favorite nation-state in Asia is Tibet...

    Protip: nation-states don't print their money with upwards of 5 scripts.

    I’ve long been saying that in [the USA], the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh [Chinese man] descended from the heavens to [be in charge].
     
    Like your immigration stance, your oh-so-rational proposal conveniently ends up with your own ethnic group taking over the USA. As long as we're fantasizing solutions for the white-NAM problem in the US, let's posit that the greatest thing that could ever happen would be if a law were passed that revoked the citizenship of everyone who immigrated since 1990, immigration laws were enforced, and the culture went back to not valorizing blacks. That's all that would need to happen.

    You and Jack "I'm-against-immigration-except-for-smart-Russians-who-happen-to-be-comprised-of-many-Jews-and-hey-what-do-you-know-my-family-is-Russian-Jews" D. should put your heads together and find a less transparent way of promoting yourselves.

    No, contrary to popular opinion here I’m not pushing for any particular immigrant group to take over the United States. Generally speaking I support the nation-state and consider myself a traditional nationalist. I think countries should exist first and foremost for the benefit of their own citizens. I don’t think the United States particularly needs more immigrants, but if we are going to let people in, it might as well be based on a sane immigration policy favoring skilled immigrants. Various other countries such as Canada, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. have such immigration policies in place.

    Chinese Americans are something like 5 million out of the 320 million plus people in this country, so we’re talking about barely more than 1.5% of the entire population, which seems pretty minimal to me. Even more so when you consider the large base population of over 1380 million from which this population is drawn from. This idea that Chinese Americans are overwhelming America may have something to do with the disproportionate impact that Chinese Americans have in this country in quantitative academic and STEM areas, more so than their actual underlying numbers, which as I’ve pointed out are fairly small.

    Since I live in the United States, I would rather not see the country turn to shit by virtue of blacks, Hispanics and whites basically tearing each other apart and lighting the entire thing on fire. So I’ve simply advocated for adopting some common sense and discipline that traditionally has tended to be embodied by our East Asian neighbors across the Pacific.

    Read More
    • Agree: Kevin C.
    • Replies: @Ian M.

    I don’t think the United States particularly needs more immigrants, but if we are going to let people in, it might as well be based on a sane immigration policy favoring skilled immigrants.
     
    This isn't clear to me. Yes, our nation gets more economic dynamism and less crime with skilled immigrants relative to unskilled immigrants. But which group will have a larger effect on our culture, on elite opinion, and on politics? The former. It's not obvious to me that this trade-off would be a net relative benefit over an equivalent number of unskilled immigrants.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. eah says:

    OT

    Gift ideas for Christmas! The #ChristmasMarket “Germany 2017″ Edition: with 24 terror concrete blocks!

    Es muss echt und aktuelle sein, oder? — die Kinder verlangen das.

    Read More
    • Replies: @eah
    https://twitter.com/westland_will/status/938167005311516672
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. dearieme says:

    “the Ford Foundation professor of international political economy at the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He was previously the Albert O Hirschman professor in the school of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton”. American academic titles are approaching royal levels of complexity.

    Charles, Prince of Wales, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Cornwall, Lord of the Isles, Blah, Blah, Blah, …..

    Read More
    • LOL: Charles Pewitt
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    American academic titles are approaching royal levels of complexity.

    He was awarded an endowed visiting position and then another endowed visiting position. They're not that common. Donors or institutions will set them up at ordinary institutions to induce someone distinguished to spend a semester there.
    , @RUSH Limbaugh
    Haha funniest observation I've heard in a while
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  11. Thea says:

    Are the blacks and Hispanics that vote to blow up our nation state part of that intellectual global elite?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  12. Svigor says:

    I don’t like the appeal to economics.

    That’s my knee-jerk reaction, too, but we are in a total kulturkampf and need to fight on all fronts. If this is what we need to sell brain-dead, dollar-worshiping capitalists on nationalism or nation-states, so be it.

    The reason the far left screams about “No Borders” is because they fear conflict and thus want to drag us back to the communal, egalitarian muck. That sentiment fuels globalism on the ground. The capitalists who want globalism for greater profit are very few in comparison.

    This makes no sense to me. National borders around a homogeneous population obviously attenuate or eliminate ethnic, racial, sectarian conflict, which seem to be the big historical fault lines. Leftists’ perennial hatred of nations and borders doesn’t seem plausibly innocent to me. At best it’s negligence to genocide; inexcusable, even if you buy their babe in the woods routine. Just try telling leftists that they are fomenting racial strife, they scream “reee!” and try to claw your eyes out. At best they don’t give a shit about the real eggs they’re breaking to make their illusory omelet.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  13. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Advanced countries don’t go to war with each other anymore, obesity is becoming more of a problem than hunger, and so forth.

    However, third-world overpopulation is worse than ever, and thanks to mass migration is now threatening to destroy Western Civilization, along with what’s left of the natural environment.

    Frankly, it would take far more than a resurgence of nationalism to address these issues, and we can’t even manage that. I daresay the future is one of third-world slums lorded over by a tiny tribal elite, along with a few Asians for technical brainpower. Notice that representatives of these two groups are even taking over this comment forum.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    My favorite nation-state in Asia is Tibet...

    Protip: nation-states don't print their money with upwards of 5 scripts.

    I’ve long been saying that in [the USA], the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh [Chinese man] descended from the heavens to [be in charge].
     
    Like your immigration stance, your oh-so-rational proposal conveniently ends up with your own ethnic group taking over the USA. As long as we're fantasizing solutions for the white-NAM problem in the US, let's posit that the greatest thing that could ever happen would be if a law were passed that revoked the citizenship of everyone who immigrated since 1990, immigration laws were enforced, and the culture went back to not valorizing blacks. That's all that would need to happen.

    You and Jack "I'm-against-immigration-except-for-smart-Russians-who-happen-to-be-comprised-of-many-Jews-and-hey-what-do-you-know-my-family-is-Russian-Jews" D. should put your heads together and find a less transparent way of promoting yourselves.

    let’s posit that the greatest thing that could ever happen would be if a law were passed that revoked the citizenship of everyone who immigrated since 1990, immigration laws were enforced, and the culture went back to not valorizing blacks. That’s all that would need to happen.

    True enough, probably, though I’d change the date to 1965 because that’s really when the nation-wrecking legislation known as Hart-Celler was enacted. That’s really the watershed dividing the America That Was from the mess we now have.

    Hart-Celler is really the most fundamentally treasonous legislation ever passed in this or any other country. It declared, in the name of the self-styled elites, “we don’t like these Americans or the way they vote, so we’ll simply replace them and not incidentally lower the wages of the working classes until Americans can’t compete anyway.”

    Nation wrecking. It’s almost enough to give a tiny, manipulative tribe a bad reputation. And this is why control of the flow of information must be maintained at all costs.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Anon • Disclaimer says: • Website

    If nation-states are bad, let Israel open its borders and allow Arabs and Muslims to Merkelize it.

    And US shouldn’t send another dime to Israel unless it dispenses with nation-statism and welcomes Merkelization.

    The real reason why nation-states are under attack are threefold:

    1. Jews see gentile nation-state-ism as barrier to their penetration, takeover, and elite dominance. This is why nation-statism is good for Israel but ‘bad’ for other nations, at least according to Jews. But when Jews say ‘nation state’ is bad, they mean it’s bad for THEIR OWN agenda. Of course, Jews know it would be selfish to say as much, so they pretend it’s bad for the gentile natives. So, it must be a terrible for Poland to want to remain Poland. It’s in the interest of Poles to improve their nation with massive invasion by Africans and Muslims.
    For some reason, it’s supposed to be GREAT for natives to allow invasion and then be replaced and erased by masses of New _____. So, New Irish are supposed to replace the Old Irish. There was a time when New World and Old World were separate entities. Now, all Old Nations must be made anew by masses of invaders. All natives must be Indianized. And these New People are to be non-whites who serve as the mercenary army for Jewish globalists. It’s like how ‘America’ has become a metaphor for a global phenom. EU has become ‘America’ for the wretched.

    2. Non-whites want to access and leech off white nations. They want from whites what they can’t create for themselves. They are a bunch of losers who want something from whites, but they are too embarrassed to admit it. They prefer to live with whites and under whites than with or under their own kind. They find white world(esp northern european ones or northern european-made ones) better in every way. Since it’s be shameful to admit how they loathe their own kind and prefer to live with whites than people just like themselves, they’ve wrapped their BS leechery with ‘humanitarian’ talk and crap about ‘economic benefits’…. or redress for ‘past injustice’.
    If they are such benefit to economy, why don’t they fix their own economies. This closet-white-supremacism can be found in the poorest African nation to richest Asian nations. There’s been much talk about the great expansion of India and China, but more than half their populations will come to Canada or US if given the chance. UN represents the material greed of the Third World but uses moral language. It’s utterly corrupt, the notion that the poorer masses can invade and take over any nation that is richer and nicer.

    3. White cucks, through madness of their own or brainwashing by PC or both, have self-righteousness as their main identity. They are addicted to feeling oh so holy. They’re like junkies, or justice junkies. Some of them are cuckish for material reasons. I don’t think Bill Clinton or Joe Biden has any personal principle. They just latch onto any nonsense that happens to be the official truth of the Current Year. Biden welcomes white erasure just to keep his own privilege in a globo-elite world. I think same goes for Merkel the bitch. But there are true believers as well. It’s either cultural roots or genetics, but some
    of these Northern European types have an earnest need to go puritanical over something. And ‘social justice’ is like pure cocaine for them. It makes them feel so high. Calling another white person a ‘racist’ or ‘nazi’ or calling for erasure of evil whiteness is like smoking crack for them. And there is the element of pop culture. Many white people have pop culture as their main culture. So, the combo of PC nuttery and Pop amnesia creates morons like Justin Trudeau.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  16. “Yet the intellectual consensus that brought us to this chasm remains intact. Proposed remedies among mainstream thought leaders rarely go beyond an invocation of the problem of inequality, and a bit more focus on compensating the losers.”

    Yet if one reads the rest of the article, it becomes clear that Rodrik is still pushing this same old-same-old. His ostensible re-evaluation of the function of the nation-state is really just a hazy call to figure out exactly how to use the nation-state to more efficiently integrate local communities into the globalist borg. Nation-states are good if and only if they can be turned to advancing the Great Global Project, bad if they represent anything beyond a mechanism to adapt diverse local cultures to said economic utopia.

    And N.B., as the article makes very clear, nation-states have nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with history, people, or culture. Every nation-state a proposition nation:

    “The best definition of the nation remains that of Abbé Sieyès, one of the theorists of the French Revolution: ‘What is a nation? A body of associates living under one common law, and represented by the same legislature.’ Ethno-nationalists, with their emphasis on race, ethnicity or religion as the basis of nation, have it backward. As the historian Mark Lilla at Columbia University put it recently: ‘A citizen, simply by virtue of being a citizen, is one of us.’”

    By the end of the article it is clear that he is still clinging to precisely the same blinkered “globalist mindset”, and the same tired “solutions”, that he made a pretense of setting out to criticize at the beginning [my emphasis]:

    “Of course, policy failures – for example, protectionism – do occur in all of these areas. But these reflect poor domestic governance, not a lack of cosmopolitanism. They result from the inability of policymakers to convince domestic constituencies of the benefits of superior choices, from political capture by powerful interests, or from unwillingness to make adjustments to ensure that most domestic groups do indeed benefit. What gives economic nationalism its deservedly bad name is not the pursuit of the national interest per se. It is the reliance on remedies that serve yet another group of special interests – protectionist lobbies or nativist groups.”

    Lol. “How do we compensate the losers, and convince them that it’s all for the best in the best of all possible worlds?” Get yer fresh policy insights right here!

    And double lol: “…political capture by powerful interests…remedies that serve yet another group of special interests – protectionist lobbies or nativist groups”. How can we use nation-states to protect poor, powerless, altruistic promoters of unilateral free-trade, open borders, and mass migration from those self-serving “nativist groups” and “protectionist lobbies”? (Well, I got good news for you on that score, Dani.)

    Read More
    • Agree: Kevin C.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  17. Republicans who push sovereignty-sapping globalization and nation-wrecking open borders mass immigration must be removed from power to protect the United States of America. Any Republican puppet politician who attacks the concept of national sovereignty or the political framework of the nation-state must be removed from power.

    Globalization and mass immigration are attacks on national sovereignty and the nation-state. The European Christian nation-states are under attack from globalizers and transnational political forces that wish to destroy the nation-state as the operating political framework of the world.

    I am still as angry as hell from reading today’s Wall Street Journal story about how Marco Rubio and Mike Pence are encouraging more foreigners to infiltrate Florida and the United States. The article tells the treasonous tale of how Marco Rubio and Mike Pence are rewarding the infiltration of Venezuelan foreigners who are sneakily using tourist visas to invade and infiltrate the United States. President Trump should fire Mike Pence immediately.

    If President Trump has ordered Mike Pence to welcome the Venezuelan invaders, then President Trump must be defeated in the presidential primaries for the 2020 presidential election.

    I hereby accuse Vice President Pence and Senator Marco Rubio of treason against the United States by openly attacking the sovereignty of the United States by encouraging the invasion of the United States by foreigners. Bye, Bye nation-state sovereignty, the globalizers in the GOP want the United States of America to die.

    Mike Pence and Marco Rubio have a long history of supporting open borders mass immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders. Marco Rubio and Mike Pence must go.

    Florida is being swamped by Puerto Ricans, Venezuelans and many other types of foreign invaders. The encouragement of foreign infiltration by Pence and Rubio is an attack on Westphalian Sovereignty and the sovereignty of the United States as a nation.

    Wall Street Journal Article On Mike Pence’s and Marco Rubio’s Attacks On United States National Sovereignty:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/like-the-cubans-before-them-venezuelan-exiles-are-transforming-florida-politics-1512327743

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Protip: nation-states don’t print their money with upwards of 5 scripts.

    India prints its money with 14 scripts (to my eye) but anyone who is well acquainted with the country would opine that it is very nation-statey, notwithstanding some low-level insurgencies in some poorer, more tribal parts of the country.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Interesting fact, thank you. But isn't India a country containing many distinct and not entirely compatible nations? Each such nation differs from the others often in two of three critical ways: ethnicity, language, or religion.
    , @Art Deco
    India and China are properly classed as 'world civilizations'. China has a long history as a distinct political unit (albeit with somewhat varying borders) and a common written language, so qualifies as a nation as well. India's been remarkably successful at holding together a configuration with so many languages and ethnic groups. Not sure you'd call it a 'nation' unless you could demonstrate that Indians have a multilayered self-understanding as do Brits.
    , @blank-misgivings
    India is 'nation-statey' among its elite metropolitan classes (although not the super elite cosmopolitan ones), but very un-nationey at the middle and lower levels where caste still predominates as a form of social cohesion. The Indian nation state's elite representatives have always been 'all talk and no trousers' as they discovered in the war with China in the 60's . The Indian state lacks 'reach' into its own backwaters and hence focuses on 'developing' the creamy layers like IT and services of various kinds but has not been willing or able to promote the horizontal solidarities and discipline typical of real nations.
    , @Peter Lund
    If India is a country then so is the EU. If the EU isn't a country then India isn't one either.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. george says:

    “Advanced countries don’t go to war with each other anymore,”

    Nuclear powers have not gone to war. Currently N Korea is nuclear, and is under economic assault by the US. Although perhaps the Norks are not advanced.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Not Raul
    Pro tip: if your country has been called, or is likely to be called, a member of the “Axis of Evil”, it’s good to have a nuclear deterrent. It works better than bribes and flattery (see Gaddafi).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. Wow, he must really feel secure in his tenure to spout off such heresy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. With all due respect to Steve (and Trump and Bannon), civic nationalism won’t work over the long run. Defining a people/country with words instead of blood is too easily manipulated, especially if you a cohesive group within that society that has remarkable verbal skills and a desire to manipulate.

    As I’ve said many times, the nation-state is the best defense against exploitive elites for several reasons. First, an undivided people can pull together to overthrow their elites far more easily than a fractious, ethnically diverse population that must set aside their own issues first. Second, an elite that feels a familial connection with their people would be less likely to allow long-term damage to that population. (This second reason is far weaker than the first. History is replete with examples of elites screwing over their own kind to win short-term gains. Still, the chances of an elite with little to no genetic ties to the overall population does up the odds that the elite will allow bad things to happen to those people.)

    Btw, my suspicion is that Steve’s civic nationalism have always been a triple bank shot form of ethnic/racial nationalism. If you have a country that’s dominated by one group and you limit immigration, by default you allow that group to remain in control. It’s ethnic nationalism in the guise of civic nationalism.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Btw, my suspicion is that Steve’s civic nationalism have always been a triple bank shot form of ethnic/racial nationalism. If you have a country that’s dominated by one group and you limit immigration, by default you allow that group to remain in control. It’s ethnic nationalism in the guise of civic nationalism.
     
    Here’s a conversation between me and Twinkie on the matter. (#283 …)
    , @Faraday's Bobcat

    With all due respect to Steve (and Trump and Bannon), civic nationalism won’t work over the long run. Defining a people/country with words instead of blood is too easily manipulated, especially if you a cohesive group within that society that has remarkable verbal skills and a desire to manipulate.
     
    Because the status quo is open-borders extremism, it is tempting to take extreme positions in opposition, but where does it end? Must one's ancestors have spoken English in order to retain American citizenship? Are you going to send the Irish-Americans back to Ireland? (Well, maybe we should've got rid of Teddy Kennedy.)

    From what I remember, America was a reasonably happy and functional place at least up through the 1980s, and it wasn't an ethnostate. Cutting legal immigration, deporting illegals, getting rid of birthright citizenship, getting rid of the goddamned H-1B, banning dual citizenship and banning immigrants from getting affirmative action or welfare would put a huge dent in the problem, and all of those things would probably win in a referendum today.
    , @anonymous-antimarxist

    Btw, my suspicion is that Steve’s civic nationalism have always been a triple bank shot form of ethnic/racial nationalism. If you have a country that’s dominated by one group and you limit immigration, by default you allow that group to remain in control. It’s ethnic nationalism in the guise of civic nationalism.
     
    American Civic Nationalism has been slowly crippled over the last hundred years by just a 2% highly ethnocentric minority that started off successfully leveraging just another 12% racial minority group,, and left-liberal slice of the political spectrum.

    Something suggests the real barrier to a return to Civic Nationalism is the question of what to do about the Ordeal of Civility presented by that 2%.

    That my friend is the true triple back shot of Steve Sailer's Citizenism.
    , @pyrrhus
    Much as we might like it to be otherwise, civic nationalism has consistently failed. Nations that endure have always been ethnically cohesive, with a strong emphasis on maintaining the dominant culture of the main ethnic group. The USA will be no different. If America continues to balkanize and diversify its population, it will eventually turn into the Balkans.
    , @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    With all due respect to Steve (and Trump and Bannon), civic nationalism won’t work over the long run.
     
    Nope, because it didn't work for the Romans (just a flash in the pan), or for the Byzantines (just a richer, if smaller, pan). Nope, it can't work at all.

    You are right that we have a huge problem with the elites. In fact, the elites are the problem. But your solution is unrealistic, and wholly divorced from the American experience.

    Maybe citizenism is suboptimal, but you have to offer a viable alternative. Otherwise we are in for a genuine fight - and, make no mistake, it is a death match. So if you don't want to die in the Gulag, try helping instead of pining for a utopian delusion.
    , @Ian M.

    Defining a people/country with words instead of blood is too easily manipulated, especially if you a cohesive group within that society that has remarkable verbal skills and a desire to manipulate.
     
    Defining a people by blood is just as much a reductionist error as is defining a people by words.

    In reality, both are needed. One needs a common history ("blood"), but also a common cult ("words") to be a people. A group that is genetically related but that does not share the same underlying ideology will have no unity and will eventually separate into two or more peoples. Calls for ethnostates are thus misguided insofar as they make the principle source of unity biological race. Biological race is one source of unity, but it is not sufficient.

    As I’ve said many times, the nation-state is the best defense against exploitive elites for several reasons.
     
    But the nation-state has been terrible at defending us against exploitive elites. For one, it only lasted maybe a century or so as a major animating force. For two, the nation-state was invented in part precisely so that the exploitive elite could exploit better (or rather, so that a new, more exploitive elite could replace the old one). The nation-state was liberalism's seminal attack against other competing and traditional sources of authority, such as the Church and more local attachments. Once these other sources of authority were substantially destroyed, liberalism no longer had any need for the nation-state and the liberal dialectic proceeded to turn on its own creation. Liberalism devours itself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. @Jason Liu
    I don't like the appeal to economics. The primary reason for nation-states is that it allows differentiation between peoples, thus creating hierarchy, tribalism and competition among humanity. This should be followed regardless of economics.

    The reason the far left screams about "No Borders" is because they fear conflict and thus want to drag us back to the communal, egalitarian muck. That sentiment fuels globalism on the ground. The capitalists who want globalism for greater profit are very few in comparison.

    The members of the Davos-gatherings for example are pro internationalism, and they – at least in my view – represent the (developed) wolrd’s economical and political elite, don’t they?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. BenKenobi says:
    @Chrisnonymous
    My favorite nation-state in Asia is Tibet...

    Protip: nation-states don't print their money with upwards of 5 scripts.

    I’ve long been saying that in [the USA], the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh [Chinese man] descended from the heavens to [be in charge].
     
    Like your immigration stance, your oh-so-rational proposal conveniently ends up with your own ethnic group taking over the USA. As long as we're fantasizing solutions for the white-NAM problem in the US, let's posit that the greatest thing that could ever happen would be if a law were passed that revoked the citizenship of everyone who immigrated since 1990, immigration laws were enforced, and the culture went back to not valorizing blacks. That's all that would need to happen.

    You and Jack "I'm-against-immigration-except-for-smart-Russians-who-happen-to-be-comprised-of-many-Jews-and-hey-what-do-you-know-my-family-is-Russian-Jews" D. should put your heads together and find a less transparent way of promoting yourselves.

    Better make it 1965.

    Yes I would be willing to fix a bayonet.

    Di.

    Di.

    Mau.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Here’s the cadence. :)

    Di di mau!
    Du ma nhieu!
    Where were you in ’62?

    New Colossus
    Plaque’d by Jew
    Nuke our losses—
    What we’ll do!
     

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. open global economy, but also our liberal, democratic order swept away by the backlash wrought by the blind spots and excesses of this mindset

    Ok – there are blind spots and excesses of the internationalist open border mindset. That’s a point to start a reasonable discussion from.

    Then there has always been Isiah Berlin as a proponent of the antion-state. Very stange, what happened to him.

    Thilo Sarrazin, the fondest – (European !?) critic of Dani Radrik’s “blind spots” and “excesses” of internationalism has two main points.

    1) Not everybody fits in quite nicely everywhere (that one is against unregulated migration).

    2) Some developed countries might have reached the point, where gains in lower prices for goods and services via international markets are now countered by rising costs for unemployment, because of all the factories and services, that keep being shifted to places where they are cheaper than – at home.
    This one is is a against unregulated trade, basically and hints at import-taxes and such measures Trump is speaking abut too, here and there).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    "There are mistakes in a hurry " (Mongolian wisdom - sorry).
    , @Bill B.
    Pity Sarrazin isn't published in English.

    I read a paper that I cannot at this moment put my hands on that, as well as pointing out that globalization is increasingly proving not beneficial to Western populations, elites aside, noted that in a globalized, loose-border world there is every reason to suppose that the majority of developed nation populations will not gain much either.

    There is no market god to distribute the wealth creation evenly and that when the "country" is the whole world selected places will do well and other places will be ignored. So hypothetically a Thailand may be a quite engaged second/third tier participant in glob-world but Myanmar/wherever may be trailing because (resources aside) glob-world finds other places more convenient.

    And by extension even a "successful" place like Thailand will not rise up evenly but will forever be a half-developed place.

    Borders are useful. Especially if behind those borders are governments with the sincere long-term interests of their own populations at heart.

    , @Desiderius


    Then there has always been Isiah Berlin as a proponent of the antion-state. Very stange, what happened to him.
     
    What did happen to him?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. So at least one globalist Jew is having thoughts.

    Dani Rodrik (born August 14, 1957) is a Turkish economist and Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy

    Descended from a family of Sephardic Jews,[3] he is affiliated with the National Bureau of Economic Research, Centre for Economic Policy Research (London), Center for Global Development, Institute for International Economics, and the Council on Foreign Relations, and is co-editor of the Review of Economics and Statistics. He has been the recipient of research grants from the Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation. Among other honors, he was presented the Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought in 2002 from the Global Development and Environment Institute.

    Gee wouldn’t have been nice if Prof Rodrick had sat down and had a talk with Jared Taylor or Peter Brimelow twenty years ago and came to the same conclusion back then???

    Prof Rodrick deserves the Robert D. Putnam “Oops I am sorry Goyim, I was wrong all along, but I was busy being a well paid shill for the globalist elite for most of my tenure” Award.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonymous-antimarxist
    Second Thoughts that is!!!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. Vinay says:

    “It would be stupid to take the system of nationalism under which this has been achieved and blow it up out of boredom and malice.”

    That’s what the much-lauded “creative destruction” looks like in practice. Maybe the West just needs a worthwhile challenge! And there just haven’t been any worthwhile contenders to replace the Communists.

    It’s telling that the most credible military threat even today is the nominally communist North Korea and the most credible economic challenger is nominally communist China, not the Supreme Islamic Caliphate or the Union Of La Raza or something like that.

    So much winning that you guys are tired of winning!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Issac
    What kind of simpleton believes the Americans are more likely to be attacked by the Korean or Chinese states than subverted through massive mestizo migration? The latter has already been demonstrated and the former is an idea so implausible that not even the diaspora putz who spout it believe a single word.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. Luke Lea says:

    My two cents over there:

    Prof. Rodrik writes: “Luckily, in most economic areas – taxes, trade policy, financial stability, fiscal and monetary management – what makes sense from a global perspective also makes sense from a domestic perspective. Economics teaches that countries should maintain open economic borders, sound prudential regulation and full-employment policies, not because these are good for other countries, but because they serve to enlarge the domestic economic pie.”

    Unfortunately, the kind of tax policy that is required in order to make trade between high- and low-wage countries work for ordinary working people in the high-wage countries is precisely what is lacking. Otherwise, capital (including human capital) gains at the expense of labor (especially unskilled labor), which is basic textbook economics. In other words, without a fair and efficient way to redistribute income from capital to labor—which, alas, is something we at present don’t know how to do*—most workers in the West would be better off under old-fashioned protectionism when it comes to trading with countries like China.

    *But for one possibility see here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WIdVnQEWdYgYYly9iKkesWCVhfINvbtwuVq2GMOxMbw/edit?usp=sharing

    See also: https://goo.gl/q4kodC

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  28. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    “It would be stupid to take the system of nationalism under which this has been achieved and blow it up out of boredom and malice.”

    It’s either an irreversible experiment or the result of a sort of religious fanaticism. Their refusal to question open borders, multiculturalism, and p.c., and their instant demonization of those who disagree, suggests it’s the latter.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. J1234 says:

    Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates.

    Those of influence and affluence are “liberated” from the constraints of culture by their influence and affluence. They often see culture as a prison, while the ordinary people who – day in and day out – make the world go round usually see culture as a fortress. Not a formula, but a general rule of thumb.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  30. @Yan Shen

    Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates.
     
    Isn't a belief in the primacy of the nation-state the mainstream view in East Asia? Of course we're talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.

    I've long been saying that in a country where blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart, the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh Lee Kuan Yew descended from the heavens to mete out some sense and discipline.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    Lee Kuan Yew was an advocate of mass migration. It is mostly because of his foreign talent policy that Singapore is overcrowded and filled with foreigners.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill B.
    "Harry" was an advocate of maintaining a large workforce - even at the cost of high immigration - but he was a very strong advocate of this immigration being mostly ethnic Chinese.

    Singapore ferociously monitors and controls ethnic population levels.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  31. Somebody is finally thinking about what’s best for capitalism. Glad that’s covered.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  32. @Yan Shen

    Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates.
     
    Isn't a belief in the primacy of the nation-state the mainstream view in East Asia? Of course we're talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.

    I've long been saying that in a country where blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart, the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh Lee Kuan Yew descended from the heavens to mete out some sense and discipline.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    Well, here he should be one of our own people, named Johnson or Schroeder or Leclaire or Vitelli or such, but I see your point ;)

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. @PiltdownMan

    Protip: nation-states don’t print their money with upwards of 5 scripts.
     
    India prints its money with 14 scripts (to my eye) but anyone who is well acquainted with the country would opine that it is very nation-statey, notwithstanding some low-level insurgencies in some poorer, more tribal parts of the country.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wYKI9f67kM0/TUG61JJeaJI/AAAAAAAAAKo/2dwIeT1n3qE/s1600/IndiaP44-100Rupees-%25281957-62%2529_b.jpg

    Interesting fact, thank you. But isn’t India a country containing many distinct and not entirely compatible nations? Each such nation differs from the others often in two of three critical ways: ethnicity, language, or religion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    You and your Eurasian family would fit right in India. You don't fit in the West.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. AaronB says:

    The nation-state remains the best foundation for capitalism,

    Excellent reason to get rid of it.

    Advanced countries don’t go to war with each other anymore, obesity is becoming more of a problem than hunger, and so forth. It would be stupid to take the system of nationalism under which this has been achieved and blow it up out of boredom and malice.

    Ha! I choked on my coffee when I read that one. Excellent attempt at rhetoric, Steve :)

    I am sure it would serve no purpose to go over the relevant history, as it is at the fingertips of every unz reader.

    Wars have diminished because of the gradual waning of the will-to-power of Europeans since WW2, and the inherited power of the West being so enormous that no credible challenge can have emerged in so short a space if time.

    A fact that is set to dramatically change in the near future.

    A European return to nationalism can only be based on a resurgence of the European will-to-power, which will, of course, bring back to life the bloody ghosts of our past.

    Power has a life of its own, and seeks to expand, and can only be checked by a superior force.

    A “limited” nationalism is an impossibility, and equilibrium can only be the temporary balance of forces, a precarious dance on the edge of an abyss.

    Of course, the waning of the European will-to-power has been a disastrous demonstration of the tragedy of King Lear.

    Your magnanimous decision to retire from the fray, after having crushed everyone, will not be met with gratitude and fair play, but will be correctly perceived as exhaustion.

    And yet, nationalism is itself a transitional state in the will-to-power of groups, which culminates in empire, then exhaustion.

    As a transitional state, nationalism has no inherent stability.

    Can we really turn back the clock to a transitional state, to a point further back in the series, and thus escape the logic of the series ?

    If this generation becomes nationalists, their sons and grandsons will be empire-builders.

    And their great-grandsons will be liberals.

    The logic of power is inescapable.

    The Wests current status, of being devoured by those on an earlier stage of their will-to-power, cannot last, either.

    The only way to escape the logic of power, the logic of the series, is to transcend it, rather than select a particular transitional stage as the optimum, understanding that it can provide no anchor.

    But for that, a return to the Transcendent, to the other-worldy, is required.

    I believe the West is poised to take that step, as the logic of power winds down to its ultimate conclusion, and dreams of a return to a previous step in the series are revealed as hollow.

    Read More
    • Agree: Ian M.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  35. Off topic;

    But Steve you are going to get lots of mileage and a couple of Takimag columns out of this stuff.

    MSNBC Host Joy Reid Apologizes Over ‘Homophobic’ Blog Posts

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2017/12/03/msnbc-host-joy-reid-apologizes-homophobic-posts/

    MSNBC host Joy Reid has apologized after blog posts emerged in which she used homophobic remarks and anti-gay jokes to mock former Florida Gov. Charlie Crist.

    In a series of posts written from 2007-2009 on Reid’s former blog ‘The Reid Report” that resurfaced on Twitter, the MSNBC host referred to Crist as “Miss Charlie” and made ungrounded suggestions that he was repressing his true sexuality.

    “Stop pretending, brother,” one post read. “It’s okay that you don’t go for the ladies.”

    Back in 2007, Joy Reid made the mistake of believing that Black females would remain safely well ahead of white homosexual male Republicucks on the top of the progressive stack ten years later.

    What is the lesson to be learned???

    We can all, even one time dutiful outer party leftists, be expected to be lined up against a wall someday because we were not able to predict how far down the rabbit hole future SJW insanity will take us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  36. L Woods says:
    @Jason Liu
    I don't like the appeal to economics. The primary reason for nation-states is that it allows differentiation between peoples, thus creating hierarchy, tribalism and competition among humanity. This should be followed regardless of economics.

    The reason the far left screams about "No Borders" is because they fear conflict and thus want to drag us back to the communal, egalitarian muck. That sentiment fuels globalism on the ground. The capitalists who want globalism for greater profit are very few in comparison.

    I don’t think the ideological bloc that works incessantly to foment ethnic and (to a far lesser extent these days) strife is averse to conflict. The left is against the nation-state because it produces a particular set of winners and losers in which they are not at the top.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    OT

    What happened to the Prince Harry/Meghan Markle thread?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  38. Patriot says:

    Over the past thousands of of years, tens of thousands of societies struggled to create a perfect
    Society — one that achieved relatively high security, stability, health, well being, justice and civil rights under the law, fantastic upwads opportunity, great wealth and infrastructure, wide middle class, freedom of religion, and high standard of living.

    The USA did that. 10,000 years of history in 10,000 places, and the USA was the best!

    Of a million previous and concurrent societies, America was #1. Humans had finally found the correct combination of factors to produce a utopian society (or as close to it as anyone else had ever done).

    Then a (((group))) of ungrateful, selfish, clannish, highly intelligent immigrants set about to dismantal this Shining city on hill, thas paragon and exemplar of near perfection, for their own selfish and evil reasons.

    My Daddy always said, “If it works, don’t fix it.” America worked better than any nation that ever existed, and ((they)) had to “change” it. Ungrateful, evil, mnipuative a$$$$$s.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    Then a (((group))) of ungrateful, selfish, clannish, highly intelligent immigrants set about to dismantal this Shining city on hill, thas paragon and exemplar of near perfection, for their own selfish and evil reasons.

    There is no doubt organized Jewry plotted to racially transform the United States -- and many other European Christian nations -- by using mass immigration as a demographic weapon. It is a historical fact that can't be disputed. I must add, however, that the WASP ruling class of the American Empire was a willing accomplice to the demographic execution of America.

    The WASP / Jew ruling class of the American Empire has colluded together to concentrate wealth and power and to actively attack the cultural cohesion of the United States. The WASP / Jew ruling class was best exemplified by the treasonous rats in the two Bush presidential administrations.

    Bushy Boy #1 used the 1990 Immigration Act to massively increase legal immigration and to encourage more illegal immigration. Bushy Boy #2 dragged the US military into the Iraq War debacle and the Afghanistan mess. The Neo-Conservative Jews in the Bushy Boy #2 administration wanted to use the US military as muscle to further the national security interests of Israel. I believe both Bush's to be WASP treasonites who push nation-wrecking mass immigration and unnecessary war in the Middle East.

    Don't forget or minimize the evil influence of treasonous WASP scum in the immigration invasion and foreign policy blunders of the American Empire. It is the WASP/ Jew ruling class of the American Empire that is evil and must be destroyed.

    , @Ian M.

    America worked better than any nation that ever existed, and ((they)) had to “change” it.
     
    No it didn't.

    "((They))" - wait, isn't it supposed to be three sets of parentheses? - didn't change it. They simply helped push it along its logical trajectory toward its ultimate destruction, the seeds of which were sown at its very founding.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. SEATAF says:

    That’s a very wise and well-phrased paragraph you write, Mr. Sailer. I suspect people underestimate the influence of “boredom and malice” on world affairs, or even boredom alone. It seems to have played a greater-than-normal role in the lead-up to the Great War, for instance.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mobi

    That’s a very wise and well-phrased paragraph you write, Mr. Sailer. I suspect people underestimate the influence of “boredom and malice” on world affairs, or even boredom alone. It seems to have played a greater-than-normal role in the lead-up to the Great War, for instance.
     
    'Boredom breeds more extreme politics':

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3678852/Could-BOREDOM-explain-political-divide-Scientists-say-tedium-lead-views-extreme.html

    The results were more reliable for liberals, because the authors struggled to find enough 'conservative' students!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. m___ says:

    Globalization, inclusiveness, planetary rule and regulations, beyond planetary, yes. ,,,Only not on the terms of improvisation as goes, by the de facto elites. Blunt opportunism, reducing the context of real problems to contexts of fairy tail. As if pollution stops at territorial borders, a river Maas does not flow across and along, with mighty disregard for the “nation states” that constitute the vista. Pollution, toxicity, energy needs, migrations, none can be fit into this scheme of retraction in a puzzle with break-lines on the surface of the earth’s crust. Call it nationalism.

    Nationalism is dead as a cognitive concept, globalization as is, a greedy myopic elite, surfing borders in an opportunistic way, leaving the hordes of human consumer bees, cornered in national corals, is as blunt as blunt can’t be noticed by the masses.

    Take your pick and wrong you are, there are times when deconstruction, demolition, resourcing is called for. Some say history is not linear, well, for once, taking in account above, that is what should be loitered. By lack of any chance to have the concept initiated, let’s play the usual games, the methods do not matter, irrelevancy, when not seen, does not make it non-consequential.

    Our elites, the blue and the red, the nationalists, and the globalists, the international Jew, Chinese philosophy, Merkel on one side, Marine Lepen on the other, only take counts between each other, and that is the only “global” today. The “global” of inclusiveness, along lines of long term interests, enlightenment beyond base opportunism is not conceivable of yet, the wildest of guesses: human nature, part of it cognitive capabilities, IQ. Running the world is not a game of go, not even chess, winning is defined by the next move. Wrong plus wrong can be mighty right for a Washington doodle, a central banker usurper in Bonn, a top floor office rat at google. It is all invisible to the consumer eye, the deaf ear of the ones concerned. We the deplorables have the elites we deserve, as time goes nothing has changed. Just to be not misunderstood twice, nationalism and globalism are irrelevant propositions.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  41. Art Deco says:
    @PiltdownMan

    Protip: nation-states don’t print their money with upwards of 5 scripts.
     
    India prints its money with 14 scripts (to my eye) but anyone who is well acquainted with the country would opine that it is very nation-statey, notwithstanding some low-level insurgencies in some poorer, more tribal parts of the country.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wYKI9f67kM0/TUG61JJeaJI/AAAAAAAAAKo/2dwIeT1n3qE/s1600/IndiaP44-100Rupees-%25281957-62%2529_b.jpg

    India and China are properly classed as ‘world civilizations’. China has a long history as a distinct political unit (albeit with somewhat varying borders) and a common written language, so qualifies as a nation as well. India’s been remarkably successful at holding together a configuration with so many languages and ethnic groups. Not sure you’d call it a ‘nation’ unless you could demonstrate that Indians have a multilayered self-understanding as do Brits.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    Re "multilayered self-understanding as do Brits", please explain.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. @anonymous-antimarxist
    So at least one globalist Jew is having thoughts.

    Dani Rodrik (born August 14, 1957) is a Turkish economist and Ford Foundation Professor of International Political Economy

     


    Descended from a family of Sephardic Jews,[3] he is affiliated with the National Bureau of Economic Research, Centre for Economic Policy Research (London), Center for Global Development, Institute for International Economics, and the Council on Foreign Relations, and is co-editor of the Review of Economics and Statistics. He has been the recipient of research grants from the Carnegie Corporation, Ford Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation. Among other honors, he was presented the Leontief Prize for Advancing the Frontiers of Economic Thought in 2002 from the Global Development and Environment Institute.
     
    Gee wouldn't have been nice if Prof Rodrick had sat down and had a talk with Jared Taylor or Peter Brimelow twenty years ago and came to the same conclusion back then???

    Prof Rodrick deserves the Robert D. Putnam "Oops I am sorry Goyim, I was wrong all along, but I was busy being a well paid shill for the globalist elite for most of my tenure" Award.

    Second Thoughts that is!!!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Thorsted says:

    Regarding globalisation. I found an interview from a danish leftist newspaper on the future of war from 1999,-18.years old and military analyst Edward Luttwak says this (auto-translate);

    Luttwak, who has written influential books on military strategy and globalization, puts things at the forefront and calls the proponents of globalization and practicing the 21st century Bolsheviks and Nazis. His point is that nations around the world will react to an American monoculture, that is, globalization’s demolition of the borders between national cultures.
    “Globalization can be interpreted as a frontal attack against societies around the world that cause a nationalist and xenophobic reaction. People will resist,” he says. from 1999

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  44. anonguy says:

    The world more or less has reached the “broad, sunlit uplands” that Churchill talked about in his “finest hour” speech in 1940. Advanced countries don’t go to war with each other anymore, obesity is becoming more of a problem than hunger, and so forth. It would be stupid to take the system of nationalism under which this has been achieved and blow it up out of boredom and malice.

    Steve, someone in 1913 or so could have said, and many did, something just a sunnily optimistic about the state of the world then, which was at peace, prosperous, progressing, age of invention, open borders/commerce throughout the world, women on a roll, for the times, for greater rights/achievements,….

    I think we sometimes blow things up out of forgetfulness and complacency, in our current era a faith that the Pax Americana order will remain fundamentally intact. It isn’t being a Cassandra to note that no political order lasts forever, so of course it will end unless we have indeed achieved the Millenium, so to speak. It is just a matter of time and in what fashion.

    However, you, Steve, have noted our ability to sometimes plan for and mitigate long running disasters, such at Y2k, which then look like overblown hysterias in retrospect.

    We have a hard time identifying cases where we didn’t end up in a Civil War, WWI, etc, out of foolishness, cooler heads prevail, and so forth. But beyond that, there isn’t a whole lot of point in territorial conquest any more. Geography is becoming fungible, as the world/culture is increasingly standardized, so ownership money/public opinion are the fulcrum points of power now, eroding the value of sovereignty.

    Probably we are going to invent a whole new way of blowing things up in ways no one, or few at least, can now foresee.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  45. Hubbub says:

    It would be stupid to take the system of nationalism under which this has been achieved and blow it up out of boredom and malice.

    We’ve been known to act stupidly at times. No defense against stupid is a sure-fire defense. Stupid is almost inherent in any attempt to impose Paradisical or Edenic programs on a world of real, living, aggressively average peoples.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  46. Sean says:
    @Yan Shen

    Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates.
     
    Isn't a belief in the primacy of the nation-state the mainstream view in East Asia? Of course we're talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.

    I've long been saying that in a country where blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart, the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh Lee Kuan Yew descended from the heavens to mete out some sense and discipline.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    When there was a fuss about a Westerner getting caned, Lee Kuan Yew said in the Far East the individual is an ant, but in the West he is a child of God

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. @Dieter Kief

    open global economy, but also our liberal, democratic order swept away by the backlash wrought by the blind spots and excesses of this mindset
     
    Ok - there are blind spots and excesses of the internationalist open border mindset. That's a point to start a reasonable discussion from.

    Then there has always been Isiah Berlin as a proponent of the antion-state. Very stange, what happened to him.

    Thilo Sarrazin, the fondest - (European !?) critic of Dani Radrik's "blind spots" and "excesses" of internationalism has two main points.

    1) Not everybody fits in quite nicely everywhere (that one is against unregulated migration).


    2) Some developed countries might have reached the point, where gains in lower prices for goods and services via international markets are now countered by rising costs for unemployment, because of all the factories and services, that keep being shifted to places where they are cheaper than - at home.
    This one is is a against unregulated trade, basically and hints at import-taxes and such measures Trump is speaking abut too, here and there).

    “There are mistakes in a hurry ” (Mongolian wisdom – sorry).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  48. Sean says:

    It would be stupid to take the system of nationalism under which this has been achieved and blow it up out of boredom and malice.

    Yes and then the banks would have no one to bail them out. Moreover, it matters which country stands behind a bank, the banks need strong nation states like the US and Germany.The EU is basically a way for the banks of weak countries like France and Italy to get access to the financial muscle of Germany

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  49. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Art Deco
    India and China are properly classed as 'world civilizations'. China has a long history as a distinct political unit (albeit with somewhat varying borders) and a common written language, so qualifies as a nation as well. India's been remarkably successful at holding together a configuration with so many languages and ethnic groups. Not sure you'd call it a 'nation' unless you could demonstrate that Indians have a multilayered self-understanding as do Brits.

    Re “multilayered self-understanding as do Brits”, please explain.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Expletive Deleted
    The insular peoples all hate each other in various convoluted ways, and always have done, possibly since the early bronze age when the current populations were established from basically the Rhine, both upper and lower (apart from some extra Germanics throughout the 1st millennium AD. Oh and some Frogo-Breton-Danes and Flems at the end of that period).

    Eventually the biggest ethnicity, the English, got to be Top Nation and informed the rest that henceforth they would all be known to the world as "the British", or else, following this up with a number of severe kickings ending in Culloden Moor in 1746 while under German management, and English language usage enforced.
    Some of them managed to wriggle out of it in the aftermath of WWI, having previously lost huge tranches of their population to the New Order, but kept the English speech etc.

    So if quizzed by some supercilious Spanish border guard for example, they answer "British" because that matches the passport, and it's just not worth the hassle of explaining to the lineal, unpurged successors of Franco's Finest.
    If examined by, say, roaming football casuals, they can choose at announce or tactically withhold the name "English!", "Welsh!", "Scottish!!1!!11!!!", "Irish by God!!" and so on fractally down the scale (Cornish, Yorkshire, Scouser, Geordie, Brummie, London, what have you).
    I think the only British Islanders who respond kindly to the Brit tag are the besieged Protestants of Northern Ireland, who will out of cussedness sometimes identify as Irish, but just to stick it to the Scots and English and possibly, wandering Americans.

    NB! Immigrant communities can be "British", but if they start calling themselves English, Scots etc,. without being substantially intermarried with those peoples (e.g some West Indians, secular Jews, house Gypsies) they just get laughed at, which only increases their delicious annoyance and frustration. Ask again in another thousand years, and we'll see ...

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Off Topic — for now!!!

    Tranny rights are now so 2017.

    Apparently the new rage in soon to be Current Year 2018 according for the likely Hollywood best picture Oscar nominees will be:

    In the cause of supporting Interplanetary Cross-species relationships rights and Trans-speciesism, the word bestiality will now be considered hate speech.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Shape_of_Water_(film)

    The idea for The Shape of Water formed during del Toro’s breakfast with Daniel Kraus in 2011, with whom he would later co-write the novel Trollhunters, del Toro said.[10] It shows similarities to the 2015 short film The Space Between Us.[11] It was also primarily inspired by del Toro’s childhood memories of seeing Creature from the Black Lagoon and wanting to see Gill-man get together with Julie Adams.[12] When del Toro was in talks with Universal to direct a remake of Creature from the Black Lagoon, he tried pitching a version focused more on the creature’s perspective where the Creature got the girl, but the studio executives rejected the concept.[13]

    The other 2018 Virtue Signaling rage will be over the support for Eubophilia and Pederasty

    L.A. Film Critics Honor Underage Gay Romantic Drama ‘Call Me By Your Name’ with Best Picture

    http://www.breitbart.com/big-hollywood/2017/12/03/l-film-critics-honor-underage-gay-romantic-drama-call-name-best-picture/

    Call Me By Your Name — which also earned Best Picture honors at the Gotham Awards last week — stars the 21-year-old Chalamet as Elio, a 17-year-old music prodigy who meets and quickly falls in love with his father’s 24-year-old research assistant Oliver (Armie Hammer) at his parents’ Italian villa over the course of the summer of 1983.

    The film also holds a 98 percent rating on review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes.

    While critics have continued to rave about the film, and particularly Chalamet’s performance (he could become the youngest-ever Best Actor winner), others have called attention to the film’s positive depiction of a sexual relationship involving an underage teenager, with its
    release coming as Hollywood has been engulfed by a widespread sexual abuse scandal.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_Me_by_Your_Name_(film)

    Call Me by Your Name is a 2017 romantic coming-of-age drama film directed by Luca Guadagnino(gay) and written by James Ivory(gay), based on the 2007 novel of the same name by André Aciman(gay,Egyptian Jew).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  51. The best definition of the nation remains that of Abbé Sieyès, one of the theorists of the French Revolution: ‘What is a nation? A body of associates living under one common law, and represented by the same legislature.’ Ethno-nationalists, with their emphasis on race, ethnicity or religion as the basis of nation, have it backward. As the historian Mark Lilla at Columbia University put it recently: ‘A citizen, simply by virtue of being a citizen, is one of us.’

    Does Rodrik, a Jew, believe that this is true for Israel? Does he believe that Israeli Jews should feel that an Israeli Arab is “one of us?”

    I don’t know, but I have my doubts.

    A truly global economy, in which economic activity is unmoored from its national base, would necessitate transnational rule-making institutions that match the global scale and scope of markets. But there are no such institutions.

    So Rodrik isn’t so much against globalism, he just thinks that for the moment we still need nation states for the sake of the “economy.”

    The United States, Japan, individual European nations and all advanced societies are to varying degrees market societies, but all have also developed historically under different circumstances and institutional setups. These market societies feature divergent practices in labour markets, corporate governance, social welfare systems, and regulation. They all have generated comparable amounts of wealth under very different rules. There is no single institutional recipe for economic success.

    Hmm. I think that Rodrik is missing one key ingrediant for economic success. Funny that he can’t seem to figure it out.

    What gives economic nationalism its deservedly bad name is not the pursuit of the national interest per se. It is the reliance on remedies that serve yet another group of special interests – protectionist lobbies or nativist groups.

    Here’s Webster’s definition of Nativism: A policy of favoring native inhabitants as opposed to immigrants.

    So how did being a “nativist” become a perjorative.

    We eviscerate the nation-state without compensating improvements in governance elsewhere. The failure to grasp that nation-states constitute the foundation of the capitalist order lies at the heart of both globalisation’s unaddressed iniquities, as well as the decline in the health of our democracies.

    This isn’t exactly a rousing defense of nation-states. Rodrik is simply saying that they are a necessary evil – until globalists can create more workable international governance.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  52. National sovereignty is going to be the political rallying cry that allows patriotic citizens all over the world to defeat the plutocratic globalizers. Nigel Farage, during the campaign for Britain’s exit from the European Union, was known to bang on about how the EU was a direct attack on nation-state sovereignty.

    Farage and the Tory leaders who campaigned for Brexit made it clear that something was lost and it must be reclaimed and regained. The British people, mostly the English, were motivated by campaign themes that suggested that Brexit would restore Britain’s ability to formulate policy — immigration policy especially — that would be in the best interest of Britain as a whole.

    In the United States, the globalizer plutocrats, transnational corporations and other sovereignty-sapping factions want to strip away sovereignty from the ancestral core of the United States. And yes, I am claiming that the use of open borders mass immigration to destroy cultural cohesion is a racial attack on the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.

    California is the prime example of a state that was demographically transformed by mass immigration. The White Core Americans in California have lost their sovereign ability to use the representative democracy system to change federal immigration laws to stop mass immigration. White Core Americans in California are now trapped behind enemy lines.

    President Trump has stressed the jobs and manufacturing angle in his trade policies. National sovereignty in regards to trade is just as important because it allows the voters to shape commercial relations between nations that benefit the nation as a whole, and not just plutocrat globalizers and transnational corporations.

    The fight over national sovereignty and national interests will be won by patriotic citizens. The voters in Britain who voted to leave the EU are an example of what is to come. The patriotic citizens in European Christian nation-states will win against the sovereignty-sapping globalizer plutocrats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  53. Headline from New York Times:

    U.S. QUITS MIGRATION PACT, SAYING IT INFRINGES ON SOVEREIGNTY

    Read More
    • Replies: @Barnard
    Trump's ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley wanted to continue with this agreement. If Stephen Miller ever leaves the White House the cause of immigration patriotism will be lost.

    However, she said, “our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone.”
     
    It must have pained Haley greatly to have to say this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  54. Svigor says:
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  55. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Recent agent-based computer simulations suggest that ethnocentrism, often thought to rely on complex social cognition and learning, may have arisen through biological evolution. From a random start, ethnocentric strategies dominate other possible strategies (selfish, traitorous, and humanitarian) based on cooperation or non-cooperation with in-group and out-group agents. Here we show that ethnocentrism eventually overcomes its closest competitor, humanitarianism, by exploiting humanitarian cooperation across group boundaries as world population saturates.

    https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2017/12/03/what-happens-when-an-ethnocentric-leech-attaches-to-a-humanitarian-host/

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  56. @Patriot
    Over the past thousands of of years, tens of thousands of societies struggled to create a perfect
    Society -- one that achieved relatively high security, stability, health, well being, justice and civil rights under the law, fantastic upwads opportunity, great wealth and infrastructure, wide middle class, freedom of religion, and high standard of living.

    The USA did that. 10,000 years of history in 10,000 places, and the USA was the best!

    Of a million previous and concurrent societies, America was #1. Humans had finally found the correct combination of factors to produce a utopian society (or as close to it as anyone else had ever done).

    Then a (((group))) of ungrateful, selfish, clannish, highly intelligent immigrants set about to dismantal this Shining city on hill, thas paragon and exemplar of near perfection, for their own selfish and evil reasons.

    My Daddy always said, "If it works, don't fix it." America worked better than any nation that ever existed, and ((they)) had to "change" it. Ungrateful, evil, mnipuative a$$$$$s.

    Then a (((group))) of ungrateful, selfish, clannish, highly intelligent immigrants set about to dismantal this Shining city on hill, thas paragon and exemplar of near perfection, for their own selfish and evil reasons.

    There is no doubt organized Jewry plotted to racially transform the United States — and many other European Christian nations — by using mass immigration as a demographic weapon. It is a historical fact that can’t be disputed. I must add, however, that the WASP ruling class of the American Empire was a willing accomplice to the demographic execution of America.

    The WASP / Jew ruling class of the American Empire has colluded together to concentrate wealth and power and to actively attack the cultural cohesion of the United States. The WASP / Jew ruling class was best exemplified by the treasonous rats in the two Bush presidential administrations.

    Bushy Boy #1 used the 1990 Immigration Act to massively increase legal immigration and to encourage more illegal immigration. Bushy Boy #2 dragged the US military into the Iraq War debacle and the Afghanistan mess. The Neo-Conservative Jews in the Bushy Boy #2 administration wanted to use the US military as muscle to further the national security interests of Israel. I believe both Bush’s to be WASP treasonites who push nation-wrecking mass immigration and unnecessary war in the Middle East.

    Don’t forget or minimize the evil influence of treasonous WASP scum in the immigration invasion and foreign policy blunders of the American Empire. It is the WASP/ Jew ruling class of the American Empire that is evil and must be destroyed.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Patriot
    Charles,

    You are 100% correct that Wasp traitors have colluded with nepotistic Jews to change America.
    But I was considering the long history of Jewish activism, including their socialist/communist activities in the 20's and 30's (the same behavior that caused a German backlash in the late 1930's).

    From the 1940's to now, we've seen US media and academia captured and twisted by Jews, for their purposes.

    As an undergrad and grad student in the late 60's and early 70's, I saw with my own eyes the Jewish students violently fight to change core American culture in every way, in order to replace it with their friggin communist utopia. They hated America and it's European-derived peoples.

    These were the sons and daughters of European Jews the USA had recently saved from total German genocide. How did they pay back the sacrifice, kindness and generosity of America? By setting out to destroy it!

    Ungrateful bastards and hypocrites. If you love open borders so much, then open yours.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  57. utu says:

    Nation-states are anti-semitic.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  58. @Yan Shen

    Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates.
     
    Isn't a belief in the primacy of the nation-state the mainstream view in East Asia? Of course we're talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.

    I've long been saying that in a country where blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart, the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh Lee Kuan Yew descended from the heavens to mete out some sense and discipline.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    Of course we’re talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.

    Here you scorn the very principle that enabled you to become an “American” in the first place.

    That is interesting, given that you’re normally advising Americans about the urgent need to import many millions more Asiatics like yourself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  59. @Jason Liu
    I don't like the appeal to economics. The primary reason for nation-states is that it allows differentiation between peoples, thus creating hierarchy, tribalism and competition among humanity. This should be followed regardless of economics.

    The reason the far left screams about "No Borders" is because they fear conflict and thus want to drag us back to the communal, egalitarian muck. That sentiment fuels globalism on the ground. The capitalists who want globalism for greater profit are very few in comparison.

    The reason the far left screams about “No Borders” is because they fear conflict and thus want to drag us back to the communal, egalitarian muck.

    Fearing conflict – or desiring to minimize its likelihood – hardly requires “communal, egalitarian muck.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jason Liu
    I agree. But the left doesn't. To them, hierarchy and conflict are inseparable.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  60. Twinkie says:
    @Yan Shen

    Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates.
     
    Isn't a belief in the primacy of the nation-state the mainstream view in East Asia? Of course we're talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.

    I've long been saying that in a country where blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart, the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh Lee Kuan Yew descended from the heavens to mete out some sense and discipline.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart

    https://youtu.be/mMvkusAI9DM

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  61. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    It must begin by stop calling these invaders ‘immigrants’.

    They are colonizers. When just a few arrive, they add spice and color. But they are coming in huge numbers to take over and replace the natives.

    They are replacists and erasists, and there is nothing lower than whites who surrender to this.

    Also, if the West promotes this as the New Normal, then it will serve as a template for all nations(except Israel of course), and then, we will live in the Age of Empire all over again. But this isn’t just military conquest of other lands and nations. It is demographic invasion of other places, which will lead to permanent destruction of people and culture.

    These ‘immigrants’ must be called by their true name: Hordes and Swarms. Hordes of invaders and swarms of globo-lucusts or globocusts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Semper Fidelis

    These ‘immigrants’ must be called by their true name: Hordes and Swarms. Hordes of invaders and swarms of globo-lucusts or globocusts.
     
    Huns and Visigoths. The Romans knew them all too well. In small numbers you assimilate them, in large numbers they assimilate you. The West is committing suicide.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  62. Barnard says:
    @Charles Pewitt
    Headline from New York Times:

    U.S. QUITS MIGRATION PACT, SAYING IT INFRINGES ON SOVEREIGNTY

    https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/937648702663069696

    Trump’s ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley wanted to continue with this agreement. If Stephen Miller ever leaves the White House the cause of immigration patriotism will be lost.

    However, she said, “our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone.”

    It must have pained Haley greatly to have to say this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Pewitt
    Nikki Haley must be removed from the Republican Party. Nikki Haley agrees with Obama that the historic American nation must be racially transformed by mass immigration and multiculturalism. Haley is the spawn of Asian Indian interlopers who infiltrated the United States because of the 1965 Immigration Act.

    Nikki Haley has a deep hatred for the Anglo-Celtic colonists and settlers who created the United States. Haley is an ungrateful infiltrator who should be deported back to India.

    Nikki Haley was the Republican Party politician who called for the removal of all monuments and memorials that honored the brave soldiers who fought for the Confederacy. Nikki Haley must be removed from the Republican Party.

    Nikki Haley can go straight to hell. President Trump must make it clear that Nikki Haley is on her way out of the Trump administration and the GOP.

    Nikki Haley is an enemy of the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  63. mobi says:
    @SEATAF
    That's a very wise and well-phrased paragraph you write, Mr. Sailer. I suspect people underestimate the influence of "boredom and malice" on world affairs, or even boredom alone. It seems to have played a greater-than-normal role in the lead-up to the Great War, for instance.

    That’s a very wise and well-phrased paragraph you write, Mr. Sailer. I suspect people underestimate the influence of “boredom and malice” on world affairs, or even boredom alone. It seems to have played a greater-than-normal role in the lead-up to the Great War, for instance.

    ‘Boredom breeds more extreme politics’:

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3678852/Could-BOREDOM-explain-political-divide-Scientists-say-tedium-lead-views-extreme.html

    The results were more reliable for liberals, because the authors struggled to find enough ‘conservative’ students!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  64. Art Deco says:
    @dearieme
    "the Ford Foundation professor of international political economy at the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He was previously the Albert O Hirschman professor in the school of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton". American academic titles are approaching royal levels of complexity.

    Charles, Prince of Wales, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Cornwall, Lord of the Isles, Blah, Blah, Blah, .....

    American academic titles are approaching royal levels of complexity.

    He was awarded an endowed visiting position and then another endowed visiting position. They’re not that common. Donors or institutions will set them up at ordinary institutions to induce someone distinguished to spend a semester there.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  65. Not Raul says:
    @george
    "Advanced countries don’t go to war with each other anymore,"

    Nuclear powers have not gone to war. Currently N Korea is nuclear, and is under economic assault by the US. Although perhaps the Norks are not advanced.

    Pro tip: if your country has been called, or is likely to be called, a member of the “Axis of Evil”, it’s good to have a nuclear deterrent. It works better than bribes and flattery (see Gaddafi).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  66. Steve, what happened to the ‘Royal Couple’ piece? I found it interesting and the comments hilarious, but when I tried to return to it today, it has disappeared!!
    Thanks

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  67. Twinkie says:

    OT: What happened to that other post/thread with 160+ comments? Just erased from history? How about a retraction or a manly admission that it was in bad taste? Or are we to pretend that it never happened?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Prince Harry sends his regards.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAF8qrR1pdE
    , @Anonym
    I thought it was funny and should never have been retracted. Double down Mr Sailer! We shall never surrender!

    https://youtu.be/5IHadByMvXk

    This speech has never been more timely. Britain has been overrun and we are expected by our "betters" in the media to not say s*** even though we've had a mouthful. They wanted to "rub the right's nose in diversity", traitor Blair ought to be hanged.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  68. Chriscom says:

    Off-topic but of interest to some of the Sailer crew, not to mention possibly Sailer:

    Watch Jordan Peele confirm and debunk some of the most popular theories about hidden themes in ‘Get Out’

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  69. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    With all due respect to Steve (and Trump and Bannon), civic nationalism won't work over the long run. Defining a people/country with words instead of blood is too easily manipulated, especially if you a cohesive group within that society that has remarkable verbal skills and a desire to manipulate.

    As I've said many times, the nation-state is the best defense against exploitive elites for several reasons. First, an undivided people can pull together to overthrow their elites far more easily than a fractious, ethnically diverse population that must set aside their own issues first. Second, an elite that feels a familial connection with their people would be less likely to allow long-term damage to that population. (This second reason is far weaker than the first. History is replete with examples of elites screwing over their own kind to win short-term gains. Still, the chances of an elite with little to no genetic ties to the overall population does up the odds that the elite will allow bad things to happen to those people.)

    Btw, my suspicion is that Steve's civic nationalism have always been a triple bank shot form of ethnic/racial nationalism. If you have a country that's dominated by one group and you limit immigration, by default you allow that group to remain in control. It's ethnic nationalism in the guise of civic nationalism.

    Btw, my suspicion is that Steve’s civic nationalism have always been a triple bank shot form of ethnic/racial nationalism. If you have a country that’s dominated by one group and you limit immigration, by default you allow that group to remain in control. It’s ethnic nationalism in the guise of civic nationalism.

    Here’s a conversation between me and Twinkie on the matter. (#283 …)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Interesting. Touches on a lot of what I've thought.

    However, I think that Twinkie makes the same mistake at Steve. Twinkie seems to be something of a white majoritarian civic nationalist. Given equal rights to all citizens regardless of race but maintain the white majority and white culture as the dominant culture of the country.


    You confuse white majoritarianism with white supremacism. You can’t believe in citizenism while being a white supremacist. Citizenism, by definition, confers legal legitimacy and equality to fellow – existing – citizens, whatever their race. Meanwhile white supremacism, by definition, is the legal privileging of one race, i.e. whites.

    White majoritarianism – the idea that whites should continue to be the majority of the population and that the cultural and civic traditions of that majority should predominate in the shared national culture – is compatible with citizenism.
     

    I'd suspect that everyone (or almost everyone) who signed the 1965 Immigration Act were white majoritarians. The problem is that once you no longer define a country by its people, you no longer have a nation-state, you have a proposition nation - a country defined by words. Once that happens, those words are open to interpretation - especially by those with kick-ass verbal skills and an agenda.

    You become a "Nation of Immigrants." Diversity is our Strength! Etc.

    The only way to keep a certain people as the majority of a 1st world country is to explicity acknowledge that the country belongs to that people and that the government will never allow them to fall below a certain percentage of the population - say 90%. Once that number is hit, all immigration is halted.

    And that gets you back to the dreaded white nationalism. It's also a form of white supremacy in the sense that this brand of whites says openly and proudly, "We want this country for us because we prefer to see 90% white faces in our towns and cities." That's a form of racism, the kind of racism that you see in Japan, Israel, China, etc. The kind of racism born of pride and self-respect, not hatred.

    Otherwise, you end up with France and Britain. Slow motion race replacement. (Well, slow at first.)

    There was one final passage from Twinkie that I think is important and where I disagree with him. He states:


    The problem with many white nationalist types (of course, I am not suggesting that you are necessarily one of them) is that they fixate on race to the total exclusion of other things. Race is important, but it’s not everything, and it doesn’t correspond perfectly with culture/ideology/religion and a whole host of other variables that make the human beings/society.
     
    A few years ago, I would have agreed with him. But with time, I'm beginning to realize that for a 1st world people to maintain themselves agains the onslaught of globalization, migration and other forces that would like to see whites disappear as a people, that, in fact, we do need to fixate on race to near exclusion of everything else; otherwise, again, you bound yourself to pretty words that can be manipulated by the media, academia and politicians.

    Try to tell a group of Japanese that Africans can become just as "Japanese" as they are and therefore they should allow some immigration from Africa. When they get done laughing, they'll tell you to go to hell because they know a simple truth that no one trick them on: Japanese is defined by blood.

    Yet, you could tell a bunch of American whites that Africans can become just as "American" as they are, and most of them will believe you. That's why Steve (and Twinkie) are wrong. Their nice civic nationalism leads us right where American whites are today, fading, demoralized and not even aware that they are a people.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  70. @Anon
    Re "multilayered self-understanding as do Brits", please explain.

    The insular peoples all hate each other in various convoluted ways, and always have done, possibly since the early bronze age when the current populations were established from basically the Rhine, both upper and lower (apart from some extra Germanics throughout the 1st millennium AD. Oh and some Frogo-Breton-Danes and Flems at the end of that period).

    Eventually the biggest ethnicity, the English, got to be Top Nation and informed the rest that henceforth they would all be known to the world as “the British”, or else, following this up with a number of severe kickings ending in Culloden Moor in 1746 while under German management, and English language usage enforced.
    Some of them managed to wriggle out of it in the aftermath of WWI, having previously lost huge tranches of their population to the New Order, but kept the English speech etc.

    So if quizzed by some supercilious Spanish border guard for example, they answer “British” because that matches the passport, and it’s just not worth the hassle of explaining to the lineal, unpurged successors of Franco’s Finest.
    If examined by, say, roaming football casuals, they can choose at announce or tactically withhold the name “English!”, “Welsh!”, “Scottish!!1!!11!!!”, “Irish by God!!” and so on fractally down the scale (Cornish, Yorkshire, Scouser, Geordie, Brummie, London, what have you).
    I think the only British Islanders who respond kindly to the Brit tag are the besieged Protestants of Northern Ireland, who will out of cussedness sometimes identify as Irish, but just to stick it to the Scots and English and possibly, wandering Americans.

    NB! Immigrant communities can be “British”, but if they start calling themselves English, Scots etc,. without being substantially intermarried with those peoples (e.g some West Indians, secular Jews, house Gypsies) they just get laughed at, which only increases their delicious annoyance and frustration. Ask again in another thousand years, and we’ll see …

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  71. @Pat Hannagan
    The world more or less has reached the “broad, sunlit uplands” that Churchill talked about in his “finest hour” speech in 1940. Advanced countries don’t go to war with each other anymore, obesity is becoming more of a problem than hunger, and so forth. It would be stupid to take the system of nationalism under which this has been achieved and blow it up out of boredom and malice.

    It's a point of constant fascination for me that you are able to write such contradictory gibberish yet seem to have not lapsed into early onset dementia.

    It’s a point of constant fascination for me that you are able to write such contradictory gibberish yet seem to have not lapsed into early onset dementia.

    It’s a point of complete indifference for me that you are able to write such meaningless blather yet seem to have provided no indication of what exactly you’re referring to, much less evidence to back it up.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  72. @BenKenobi
    Better make it 1965.

    Yes I would be willing to fix a bayonet.

    Di.


    Di.

    Mau.

    Here’s the cadence. :)

    Di di mau!
    Du ma nhieu!
    Where were you in ’62?

    New Colossus
    Plaque’d by Jew
    Nuke our losses—
    What we’ll do!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  73. Svigor says:

    Wars have diminished because of the gradual waning of the will-to-power of Europeans since WW2, and the inherited power of the West being so enormous that no credible challenge can have emerged in so short a space if time.

    I suspect that events in Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Kuwait, Iraq, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, etc., have put quite a damper on the will-to-power of non-Europeans since WWII, as well. This side of 4th generation warfighting, I mean.

    A “limited” nationalism is an impossibility, and equilibrium can only be the temporary balance of forces, a precarious dance on the edge of an abyss.

    I dispute that. Politics need not be so rigid. A nationalism that disavows foreign nation-building and militant foreign policy seems perfectly reasonable, even natural, to me, but is quite different from imperialist or expansionist nationalism.

    If this generation becomes nationalists, their sons and grandsons will be empire-builders.

    And their great-grandsons will be liberals.

    The logic of power is inescapable.

    What logic? I didn’t see any logic, but I did skim a bit. Did I miss the logic?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  74. Anon • Disclaimer says:

    Nation-States are good for animals.

    https://nypost.com/2017/12/03/police-hunting-cruel-teen-who-threw-a-kitten-in-snapchat-video/

    Maybe the kid will get off like the killer of Steinle.

    He didn’t know it was a cat. And it just leapt out of his hand.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  75. Svigor says:

    Don’t forget or minimize the evil influence of treasonous Yankee scum in the immigration invasion and foreign policy blunders of the American Empire. It is the Yankee/ Jew ruling class of the American Empire that is evil and must be destroyed.

    FIFY.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  76. Jonah says:

    OT – This Week’s Black Quarterback Update

    Black QBs now 38-53 as NFL starters this year.

    If the playoffs began tomorrow, only two contenders would feature black QBs. Russel Wilson’s Seahawks and Cam Newton’s Panthers would play road games as NFC wild card teams. Both have top 10 defenses. Wilson is having a nice season behind center. Newton’s team really only moves it on the ground.

    You could only really make a case for two other black QBs being any good at all. DeShaun Watson, who was exciting in getting off to a 3-3 start, but got hurt (exhibit A: why you don’t draft running QBs). And Dak Prescott who has slumped badly since Dallas’s offensive line and running back play has regressed from “best in the league” to “merely very good.” Apparently, he’s not as good as Jerry Jones thought when he released Tony Romo.

    It’s been 30 years since Doug Williams won the Super Bowl. Unless the rules of the game are changed to radically disadvantage downfield passing, I don’t see black QBs taking over the sport as everyone thought they would 15 years ago. It’s just not happening.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  77. @Twinkie
    OT: What happened to that other post/thread with 160+ comments? Just erased from history? How about a retraction or a manly admission that it was in bad taste? Or are we to pretend that it never happened?

    Prince Harry sends his regards.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    We all make mistakes or exercise poor judgment from time to time. But I respect men who admit their mistakes and make amends. That’s manly.

    Hiding such mistakes, instead, and acting like it never happened is... dishonest and unmanly. It’s one of the things I really hate about our current culture. Nobody ever manfully admits error in public. Okay, perhaps not “nobody,” but it seems to be the dominant practice to NOT admit mistakes and, if pressed, retreat to something weaselly like “Oh, I’m sorry IF you were offended.”

    What would have been the harm in our host admitting, “You know what? I thought about it again, and that was in poor taste. Sorry about that.”? He would have only gained more admirers.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  78. Issac says:
    @Vinay
    “It would be stupid to take the system of nationalism under which this has been achieved and blow it up out of boredom and malice.”

    That’s what the much-lauded “creative destruction” looks like in practice. Maybe the West just needs a worthwhile challenge! And there just haven’t been any worthwhile contenders to replace the Communists.

    It’s telling that the most credible military threat even today is the nominally communist North Korea and the most credible economic challenger is nominally communist China, not the Supreme Islamic Caliphate or the Union Of La Raza or something like that.

    So much winning that you guys are tired of winning!

    What kind of simpleton believes the Americans are more likely to be attacked by the Korean or Chinese states than subverted through massive mestizo migration? The latter has already been demonstrated and the former is an idea so implausible that not even the diaspora putz who spout it believe a single word.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  79. Svigor says:

    Facebook’s Sheryl Sandberg warns of a “Me Too” backlash against women at work

    Jewish feminists tell leftists that they’re concerned the feminist pogrom witch hunt will backlash against all women.
    Jewish andrists tell rightists that they’re concerned the feminist pogrom witch hunt will come for all men.

    Just sayin’; maybe they’re both concerned for one group of men and women in particular?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  80. Anon • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Serious weirdos but from a time when leftists actually had something to say.

    https://www.geni.com/people/Anne-Fremantle/6000000001082804381

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivan_Illich

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  81. Anon7 says:
    @rogue-one
    >invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense

    Invade the world, invite the world has been the principle of every empire since the Romans. The US acts more like an empire than a nation state or even a state.

    The United States acts more like an empire…

    One of the oft-repeated phenomena of great empires is the influx of foreigners to the capital city. Roman historians often complain of the number of Asians and Africans in Rome. Baghdad, in its prime in the ninth century, was international in its population— Persians, Turks, Arabs, Armenians, Egyptians, Africans and Greeks mingled in its streets.

    In London today, Cypriots, Greeks, Italians, Russians, Africans, Germans and Indians jostle one another on the buses and in the underground, so that it sometimes seems difficult to find any British. The same applies to New York, perhaps even more so…

    The original conquering race is often to be found in relative purity in rural districts and on far frontiers. It is the wealth of the great cities which draws the immigrants. As, with the growth of industry, cities nowadays achieve an ever greater preponderance over the countryside, so will the influence of foreigners increasingly dominate old empires.

    The Fate of Nations (published 1976), John Glubb

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  82. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    With all due respect to Steve (and Trump and Bannon), civic nationalism won't work over the long run. Defining a people/country with words instead of blood is too easily manipulated, especially if you a cohesive group within that society that has remarkable verbal skills and a desire to manipulate.

    As I've said many times, the nation-state is the best defense against exploitive elites for several reasons. First, an undivided people can pull together to overthrow their elites far more easily than a fractious, ethnically diverse population that must set aside their own issues first. Second, an elite that feels a familial connection with their people would be less likely to allow long-term damage to that population. (This second reason is far weaker than the first. History is replete with examples of elites screwing over their own kind to win short-term gains. Still, the chances of an elite with little to no genetic ties to the overall population does up the odds that the elite will allow bad things to happen to those people.)

    Btw, my suspicion is that Steve's civic nationalism have always been a triple bank shot form of ethnic/racial nationalism. If you have a country that's dominated by one group and you limit immigration, by default you allow that group to remain in control. It's ethnic nationalism in the guise of civic nationalism.

    With all due respect to Steve (and Trump and Bannon), civic nationalism won’t work over the long run. Defining a people/country with words instead of blood is too easily manipulated, especially if you a cohesive group within that society that has remarkable verbal skills and a desire to manipulate.

    Because the status quo is open-borders extremism, it is tempting to take extreme positions in opposition, but where does it end? Must one’s ancestors have spoken English in order to retain American citizenship? Are you going to send the Irish-Americans back to Ireland? (Well, maybe we should’ve got rid of Teddy Kennedy.)

    From what I remember, America was a reasonably happy and functional place at least up through the 1980s, and it wasn’t an ethnostate. Cutting legal immigration, deporting illegals, getting rid of birthright citizenship, getting rid of the goddamned H-1B, banning dual citizenship and banning immigrants from getting affirmative action or welfare would put a huge dent in the problem, and all of those things would probably win in a referendum today.

    Read More
    • Agree: Opinionator
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    From what I remember, America was a reasonably happy and functional place at least up through the 1980s, and it wasn’t an ethnostate.
     
    Yeah, it kind of was. Up to 1965, it was 85% to 90% white. Even by the 1980s, it was still 75% to 85% white and Anglo-Saxon culture and institutions were dominant, so it was American-European ethno-state.

    That being said, I agree generally agree with your prescriptions. However, to enact such draconian measures - and they are - there would need to be an open acceptance by whites that we want the United States to remain at the very least a semi-ethnostate dominated by whites. Otherwise, why do we want to stop all of those good people from coming to our country and being "Americans" just like us.

    Because the status quo is open-borders extremism, it is tempting to take extreme positions in opposition
     
    It's not tempting; it's necessary. You might have noticed to that talking nice hasn't worked so well.

    but where does it end? Must one’s ancestors have spoken English in order to retain American citizenship? Are you going to send the Irish-Americans back to Ireland?

     

    Irish-Americans look and act pretty white to me. And since my kids have some Mc in them, I'll let the Irish stick around. ;)

    But that argument is similar to "Well, there's no perfect definition of the color orange so there's no color orange" or because sometimes it's tough to define where one neighborhood ends and another begins, there's no such thing as neighborhoods.

    I'll ask the Japanese or Koreans to help me out on the whole who gets in and who doesn't. I'm pretty sure that we can figure it out.

    Regardless, I'm not so deluded as to think as of this will happen. The best hope for American whites is that we slowly start thinking of ourselves an ethnic group because we noticed that everybody else does and that we start forming ethic groups/enclaves like everyone else.

    Basically, our best shot is to act like Jews. There will be no American white ethno-state, but we can carve out a piece of the coming multi-everything society.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  83. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    With all due respect to Steve (and Trump and Bannon), civic nationalism won't work over the long run. Defining a people/country with words instead of blood is too easily manipulated, especially if you a cohesive group within that society that has remarkable verbal skills and a desire to manipulate.

    As I've said many times, the nation-state is the best defense against exploitive elites for several reasons. First, an undivided people can pull together to overthrow their elites far more easily than a fractious, ethnically diverse population that must set aside their own issues first. Second, an elite that feels a familial connection with their people would be less likely to allow long-term damage to that population. (This second reason is far weaker than the first. History is replete with examples of elites screwing over their own kind to win short-term gains. Still, the chances of an elite with little to no genetic ties to the overall population does up the odds that the elite will allow bad things to happen to those people.)

    Btw, my suspicion is that Steve's civic nationalism have always been a triple bank shot form of ethnic/racial nationalism. If you have a country that's dominated by one group and you limit immigration, by default you allow that group to remain in control. It's ethnic nationalism in the guise of civic nationalism.

    Btw, my suspicion is that Steve’s civic nationalism have always been a triple bank shot form of ethnic/racial nationalism. If you have a country that’s dominated by one group and you limit immigration, by default you allow that group to remain in control. It’s ethnic nationalism in the guise of civic nationalism.

    American Civic Nationalism has been slowly crippled over the last hundred years by just a 2% highly ethnocentric minority that started off successfully leveraging just another 12% racial minority group,, and left-liberal slice of the political spectrum.

    Something suggests the real barrier to a return to Civic Nationalism is the question of what to do about the Ordeal of Civility presented by that 2%.

    That my friend is the true triple back shot of Steve Sailer’s Citizenism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  84. @Jason Liu
    I don't like the appeal to economics. The primary reason for nation-states is that it allows differentiation between peoples, thus creating hierarchy, tribalism and competition among humanity. This should be followed regardless of economics.

    The reason the far left screams about "No Borders" is because they fear conflict and thus want to drag us back to the communal, egalitarian muck. That sentiment fuels globalism on the ground. The capitalists who want globalism for greater profit are very few in comparison.

    The reason the far left screams about “No Borders” is because they fear conflict and thus want to drag us back to the communal, egalitarian muck.

    The reason the far left wants open borders is because they are all Jewish and there’s nothing Jews fear more than united white power. In a nation of all or mostly whites, Jews are at the bottom of the totem pole. But in a multicultural country, there will be constant division as white power is diluted, and Jews can be at the top.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    In a nation of all or mostly whites, Jews are at the bottom of the totem pole.
     
    Jews have never been at the bottom of the totem pole in America. Jews don't need the stupid policies our elites have imposed on us to do well.

    If you could wave your magic wand and realize your wish, we would still have all the problems that we have now. Leftists are over-represented in the Children of Israel, but there are plenty of Leftists that are not.

    It is the Left that is the enemy of the American people. And when your focus is redirected elsewhere, you reduce the chances that we can win this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  85. Nick Diaz says:

    Now this is rich. Trying to ascribe the enormous scientific and economic progress over the last two centuries to nation-states, when in reality such progress is due to the values of the Enlightnment. There were nation-states before the XVIIIth century, like the Parthian Empire and Han China, and yet there was very little scientific and cultural progress during that time. The Byzantine Empire was also a classic nation-state, and yet for some 400 years it stagnated and had nothing to show for.

    In fact, strong nation-states has historically been at odds with entrepeuners, scientists and artists, and tried to blot progress because it didn’t fit their nationalist ideology. The classic example is Nazi Germany, where art, science and industry were controlled by the state, and any type of contribution had to be analysed on the grounds of whether it was “Aryan”, “Germanic” or not. The U.S.S.R was a strong nation-state, with all the characteristics of a strong nation-state, from national borders to a national army, and yet it ended capitalist freedom. Trying to say that nationalism is responsible for the success of capitalism and science is asinine and easily refuted by the historical evidence.

    No, the progress of the last two centuries were due to the Enlightnment values of personal freedom, rationalism and a limited government. In fact, the countries that progressed the most were those that gave individuals the highest degree of freedom and were the least nationalistic, like England and France. The strong nation-states with lesser personal freedom, like Prussia and Tsarist Russia, took much longer to develop.

    Of course, Sailer completely glosses over the *tragedy* that nationalism causes. Roughly 80% of all wars are caused by nationalism, with the other 20% being caused by religion. In the XXth century alone, nationalism killed some 100 million human beings. Just WWII alone had an estimated death toll of some 55 million people. I guess Sailer finds the death of tens of millions of young men a small price to pay in exchange for his contrived and poorly substantiated argument that nationalism fosters economic and scientific progress. I know that, to conservatives, the lives of young men are disposable cannon fodder to be sacrificed in the altar of national greatness – and Sailer has expressed sympathy for the military draft -, but I think otherwise. As Einstein once said:

    “Nationalism is the cancer of Mankind.”

    [MORE]

    And, of course, Sailer and his minions don’t really understand what globalisation is. It is not some “conspiracy” on the part of plutocrats to destroy the nation-state; rather, globalisation is a process that has been going on since the late Pleistocene era some 30,000 years go, when the first tribes of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers decided to trade with other tribes for mutual benefit. Tribes eventually coalesced into fixed communities with the development of agriculture at the beggining of the Neolithic era, to the formation of the first city-state by the end of the Copper age some 7,000 years ago , to eventually nation-states and empires.

    Globalisation is the progression of that. Simple as that. It is fostered by the development of technology, and has nothing to do with politics. As communications and transporations technology develops, business, that before could only be done locally or nationally, can now be done globally. It is simply the result of more advanced science. Just like the development of agriculture allowed for the formation of the first settled communities, and city-states, the development of roads allowed for distant communities to coalesce into nations with large territories, now the massive growth of communications technology has shrunk the World even more. Globalisation is a technological process that has been going on since the Pleistocene, but Sailer and his minions cannot connect the dots. In fact, Sailer and his minions have demonstrated an amazing inability to connect the dots. It’s a good thing that I am here to think for them. Someone has to do it.

    What we are actually going through with globalisation at this stage is that we are progressing to becoming a Type I civilization in the Kardashev Scale. The internet, for instance, is a global communication platform. A Type I civilization is a global unified civilization that harnesses all the energy and productive capacity of a planet. With the development of thermonuclear weapons in the 1950′s, the obsolescence of nation-states became a matter of time. Thermonuclear weapons make national borders redundant, and represent a risk of global catastrophe. Eventually, a one World government will be needed to avoid mass extinction, as terrorists will soon be able to make these weapons. With the development of communications technology, the nation-state became obsolete economically as well.

    Deal with it: you guys are living fossils, as well as your ideas. The World you want is not sustainable in the long-run. It’s either globalisation or mass extinction or stagnation. In fact, we might not make it. Maybe the development of a global society will lose out to nationalism, and eventually these nation-states, all armed with nukes and wanting to uphold their national interests, will simply erradicate the human species.

    I truly hope people like you lose out in the end. For the good of Mankind.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Charles Erwin Wilson II
    Nick Diaz, once again demonstrating that historical illiteracy, contempt for experience, and fallacious reasoning do not preclude one from posting here.

    Thanks Nick. And stay away from my cats.
    , @silviosilver
    I think Rodrik would say that your analysis focuses far too much on the "nation" side of "nation-state" and far too little on the "state" side, which in Rodrik's view was the key driver of these innovations. So while nations certainly did exist in the past, they were tremendously lacking in the "stateness" of modern nation-states.

    I intensely dislike ethno-nationalism for many of the same reasons that lefties do, but in contrast I think recognizing racial reality and promoting racial identity are a must - it's insanity to forge ahead without them.
    , @Patriot
    Diaz, please learn to think. You say that 80% of wars were caused by nationalism, but in reality, 100% of wars have been caused by diversity (= differences); i.e., diversity in religion, race ethnicity, language, wealth, resources, politics, etc. Nationality is often a sum of many such differences.

    This is why diversity within a single society is so friggin dangerous. Diversity is almost never a strength, but a costly weakness. The happiest and most peaceful societies are often homogeneous, and have few differences (diverse aspects) to fight over.
    , @Ian M.
    I actually think there is some truth to what you say. For example, I think globalism is in large part driven by technology and is part of a longer process that's been going on for eons, although I wouldn't reduce it to that factor alone.

    Roughly 80% of all wars are caused by nationalism, with the other 20% being caused by religion.
     
    People are always going to fight over what they regard as most important, whether that be their religion or their nation or something else. The only way to avoid this is for people to become indifferent and apathetic, a state of affairs the atomization caused by liberalism is doing a great job generating. But a world where there is nothing about which people care enough to fight for and sacrifice for is not a world I particularly look forward to.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  86. @Anon
    It must begin by stop calling these invaders 'immigrants'.

    They are colonizers. When just a few arrive, they add spice and color. But they are coming in huge numbers to take over and replace the natives.

    They are replacists and erasists, and there is nothing lower than whites who surrender to this.

    Also, if the West promotes this as the New Normal, then it will serve as a template for all nations(except Israel of course), and then, we will live in the Age of Empire all over again. But this isn't just military conquest of other lands and nations. It is demographic invasion of other places, which will lead to permanent destruction of people and culture.

    These 'immigrants' must be called by their true name: Hordes and Swarms. Hordes of invaders and swarms of globo-lucusts or globocusts.

    These ‘immigrants’ must be called by their true name: Hordes and Swarms. Hordes of invaders and swarms of globo-lucusts or globocusts.

    Huns and Visigoths. The Romans knew them all too well. In small numbers you assimilate them, in large numbers they assimilate you. The West is committing suicide.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  87. Advanced countries don’t go to war with each other anymore

    That’s because the Jews who control our media and academia have been too busy indoctrinating our boys into soy boys, gay boys, transgenders, vegans, metrosexuals and millennial SJWs screaming like little girls for safe spaces. Not only do we no longer go to war with each other, but we no longer even try to defend our borders when we are getting invaded.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  88. Patriot says:
    @Charles Pewitt
    Then a (((group))) of ungrateful, selfish, clannish, highly intelligent immigrants set about to dismantal this Shining city on hill, thas paragon and exemplar of near perfection, for their own selfish and evil reasons.

    There is no doubt organized Jewry plotted to racially transform the United States -- and many other European Christian nations -- by using mass immigration as a demographic weapon. It is a historical fact that can't be disputed. I must add, however, that the WASP ruling class of the American Empire was a willing accomplice to the demographic execution of America.

    The WASP / Jew ruling class of the American Empire has colluded together to concentrate wealth and power and to actively attack the cultural cohesion of the United States. The WASP / Jew ruling class was best exemplified by the treasonous rats in the two Bush presidential administrations.

    Bushy Boy #1 used the 1990 Immigration Act to massively increase legal immigration and to encourage more illegal immigration. Bushy Boy #2 dragged the US military into the Iraq War debacle and the Afghanistan mess. The Neo-Conservative Jews in the Bushy Boy #2 administration wanted to use the US military as muscle to further the national security interests of Israel. I believe both Bush's to be WASP treasonites who push nation-wrecking mass immigration and unnecessary war in the Middle East.

    Don't forget or minimize the evil influence of treasonous WASP scum in the immigration invasion and foreign policy blunders of the American Empire. It is the WASP/ Jew ruling class of the American Empire that is evil and must be destroyed.

    Charles,

    You are 100% correct that Wasp traitors have colluded with nepotistic Jews to change America.
    But I was considering the long history of Jewish activism, including their socialist/communist activities in the 20′s and 30′s (the same behavior that caused a German backlash in the late 1930′s).

    From the 1940′s to now, we’ve seen US media and academia captured and twisted by Jews, for their purposes.

    As an undergrad and grad student in the late 60′s and early 70′s, I saw with my own eyes the Jewish students violently fight to change core American culture in every way, in order to replace it with their friggin communist utopia. They hated America and it’s European-derived peoples.

    These were the sons and daughters of European Jews the USA had recently saved from total German genocide. How did they pay back the sacrifice, kindness and generosity of America? By setting out to destroy it!

    Ungrateful bastards and hypocrites. If you love open borders so much, then open yours.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  89. @Jenner Ickham Errican

    Btw, my suspicion is that Steve’s civic nationalism have always been a triple bank shot form of ethnic/racial nationalism. If you have a country that’s dominated by one group and you limit immigration, by default you allow that group to remain in control. It’s ethnic nationalism in the guise of civic nationalism.
     
    Here’s a conversation between me and Twinkie on the matter. (#283 …)

    Interesting. Touches on a lot of what I’ve thought.

    However, I think that Twinkie makes the same mistake at Steve. Twinkie seems to be something of a white majoritarian civic nationalist. Given equal rights to all citizens regardless of race but maintain the white majority and white culture as the dominant culture of the country.

    You confuse white majoritarianism with white supremacism. You can’t believe in citizenism while being a white supremacist. Citizenism, by definition, confers legal legitimacy and equality to fellow – existing – citizens, whatever their race. Meanwhile white supremacism, by definition, is the legal privileging of one race, i.e. whites.

    White majoritarianism – the idea that whites should continue to be the majority of the population and that the cultural and civic traditions of that majority should predominate in the shared national culture – is compatible with citizenism.

    I’d suspect that everyone (or almost everyone) who signed the 1965 Immigration Act were white majoritarians. The problem is that once you no longer define a country by its people, you no longer have a nation-state, you have a proposition nation – a country defined by words. Once that happens, those words are open to interpretation – especially by those with kick-ass verbal skills and an agenda.

    You become a “Nation of Immigrants.” Diversity is our Strength! Etc.

    The only way to keep a certain people as the majority of a 1st world country is to explicity acknowledge that the country belongs to that people and that the government will never allow them to fall below a certain percentage of the population – say 90%. Once that number is hit, all immigration is halted.

    And that gets you back to the dreaded white nationalism. It’s also a form of white supremacy in the sense that this brand of whites says openly and proudly, “We want this country for us because we prefer to see 90% white faces in our towns and cities.” That’s a form of racism, the kind of racism that you see in Japan, Israel, China, etc. The kind of racism born of pride and self-respect, not hatred.

    Otherwise, you end up with France and Britain. Slow motion race replacement. (Well, slow at first.)

    There was one final passage from Twinkie that I think is important and where I disagree with him. He states:

    The problem with many white nationalist types (of course, I am not suggesting that you are necessarily one of them) is that they fixate on race to the total exclusion of other things. Race is important, but it’s not everything, and it doesn’t correspond perfectly with culture/ideology/religion and a whole host of other variables that make the human beings/society.

    A few years ago, I would have agreed with him. But with time, I’m beginning to realize that for a 1st world people to maintain themselves agains the onslaught of globalization, migration and other forces that would like to see whites disappear as a people, that, in fact, we do need to fixate on race to near exclusion of everything else; otherwise, again, you bound yourself to pretty words that can be manipulated by the media, academia and politicians.

    Try to tell a group of Japanese that Africans can become just as “Japanese” as they are and therefore they should allow some immigration from Africa. When they get done laughing, they’ll tell you to go to hell because they know a simple truth that no one trick them on: Japanese is defined by blood.

    Yet, you could tell a bunch of American whites that Africans can become just as “American” as they are, and most of them will believe you. That’s why Steve (and Twinkie) are wrong. Their nice civic nationalism leads us right where American whites are today, fading, demoralized and not even aware that they are a people.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Yet, you could tell a bunch of American whites that Africans can become just as “American” as they are, and most of them will believe you. That’s why Steve (and Twinkie) are wrong.
     
    I don't know about Mr. Sailer, but that is certainly a mischaracterization of my view. I think some ethno-national groups are more assimilative than others. And I base this not on my personal opinions and anecdotes, but on concrete studies of proxies that approximate reasonable definitions of assimilation (economic, cultural, and social in the study): https://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_76.pdf

    And even with high-assimilation groups, numbers - as Mr. Derbyshire would say - is of paramount importance. Too many immigrants of any stripe are liable to slow assimilation (which is why I support immigration restriction, both legal or otherwise, given the currently rather high percentage of foreign-born population, among whom I am one).

    The other important factor is what people such as Mark Krikorian (CIS) has long preached over the years (that is, long before "Alt-Right" and Trump became things of note) - that assimilation requires the host society to encourage assimilation (I know, crazy, right?). And we all know our society doesn't anymore. That's something we need to fix badly. From my day one in America, I learned to say the Pledge of Allegiance - in essence I was encouraged to give fealty to God, country, and community here. That just simply isn't done, because our elite stratum has been captured by those who feel greater kinship with elites in other societies rather than the "lowborn" of our own. I think it's likely that more recent graduates of the Ivy League went on to work in investment/banking in London than served in Afghanistan or Iraq.

    To recap, is "civic nationalism" workable today? Probably not. Not with high immigration (and of the wrong type) and not with a "multicultural" elite that doesn't insist on traditional American patriotism and assimilation. What then, should be the answer? Full on race war? Racial separation? Or work through political and social forces to recapture (or rebuild) some of the institutions and re-enact immigration restriction and assimilation? Which is more likely to succeed? Which is less likely to cause suffering?

    Remember that while reform is difficult to achieve, breaking a society is nearly irreversible. I say we owe our children an earnest attempt at the former, before we take the drastic and likely highly destructive step toward the latter... because if that latter were to come about, it won't be the current generation of adults paying the deepest price. It will be the children (along with the old and the infirm).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  90. On topic

    https://www.rt.com/usa/411923-supreme-court-trump-travel-ban/

    The absurdity that is ping pong legalism rolls on.

    SCOTUS has approved the Muslim ban temporarily while they await full arguments. Meanwhile, additional challenges are still ongoing in multiple lower circuit courts. How the hell does that work? And also North Korea and Venezuela have been added to the ban list, seemingly without controversy. So it’s fine for the president to ban classes of persons, unless they’re Muslim…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  91. A body needs individual organs to function. Doesn’t any complex system have essentially the same need?

    If you turn it all into hamburger you will kill it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  92. Jason Liu says:
    @silviosilver

    The reason the far left screams about “No Borders” is because they fear conflict and thus want to drag us back to the communal, egalitarian muck.
     
    Fearing conflict - or desiring to minimize its likelihood - hardly requires "communal, egalitarian muck."

    I agree. But the left doesn’t. To them, hierarchy and conflict are inseparable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    There is hierarchy in the sense that neither individuals nor groups are in actual fact equal. Recognizing this is just recognizing reality for what it is. I would say this still allows for an ethic of treating people as equally as possible, but not more so.

    Then there is hierarchy in the sense of a value system, which focuses on, emphasizes and, intentionally or otherwise, exaggerates the degree to which individuals and groups are unequal, and which has no interest in or desire to treat anyone or anything equally. The social effect is that people become obsessed with being superior to other individuals and groups; obsessed with identifying and promoting the very best that their culture has produced and presenting it as superior to anybody else's cultural products. You wouldn't be far wrong if you called this the essence of fascism. If you read their blogs, this certainly seems to be what animates the neo-nazi types - a fanatical obsession with presenting themselves as the greatest who ever lived and the greatest there will ever be. It's more or less straight out race-worship.

    I think lefties are wrong to fear that the former will necessarily lead to conflict (at least wrong to fear it to the paralyzing extent that they do), but quite right to fear that the latter will.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  93. Twinkie says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    Prince Harry sends his regards.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAF8qrR1pdE

    We all make mistakes or exercise poor judgment from time to time. But I respect men who admit their mistakes and make amends. That’s manly.

    Hiding such mistakes, instead, and acting like it never happened is… dishonest and unmanly. It’s one of the things I really hate about our current culture. Nobody ever manfully admits error in public. Okay, perhaps not “nobody,” but it seems to be the dominant practice to NOT admit mistakes and, if pressed, retreat to something weaselly like “Oh, I’m sorry IF you were offended.”

    What would have been the harm in our host admitting, “You know what? I thought about it again, and that was in poor taste. Sorry about that.”? He would have only gained more admirers.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mobi

    What would have been the harm in our host admitting, “You know what? I thought about it again, and that was in poor taste. Sorry about that.”?
     
    It's implied. (And how do you know it wasn't stated in the thread in question?).

    Get off your high horse, or offer something better.

    Nagging isn't 'manly', by the way.

    , @Bill P
    I disagree. Steve's working here as a writer. When he corrects a mistake, it's called "editing" -- something he has to do by himself, BTW.

    How many among us could exercise the restraint he's demonstrated over decades of writing? Very few, I imagine, and the very people he's competing against have a number of professionals to rely on to pore over their work for many hours before it's released for public consumption. Can you imagine laboring under such a handicap and still holding your own?

    Even the most circumspect, timid MSM conservatives, such as Ross Douthat, flub their tweets more often than Steve Sailer hits his thumb with the hammer.

    Furthermore, imagine being a patriotic American living in Los Angeles, CALIFORNIA, and having to bite your tongue as the city and state of your birth go to hell. I couldn't do it. At the very least, I'd have to move to the mountainous north part of the state if not abandon it altogether.

    Finally, think of what a craftsman does. If a master carpenter screws up for whatever reason - say the Romans have taken over his land and are putting up busts of their emperor all over the place, upsetting him badly - and makes a mistake, is he supposed to leave it there for the customer, and "manfully" admit that he made the mistake? Instead, maybe he could throw out the crooked beam or whatever it was, replace it with a true beam, and then finish the job to the customer's satisfaction. That's how you do a good job.
    , @Yan Shen
    What post did Steve remove? I can't seem to remember off the top of my head...
    , @Jenner Ickham Errican
    I understand your point. When I read the post in question, I thought it a bit crass and unusual for Steve, but then again, who am I to judge? One thing I don’t envy about Steve’s position is the general expectation of him to be ‘respectable’ in some way.

    I’m sure there’s a lot that Steve might like to say, but doesn’t, because he’s not anonymous and if you’re in full ‘shoot the shit’ mode, stuff can blow back (e.g. Donald Trump in the Access Hollywood bus). Of course, it need not be ‘scandalous’ content—all of us have probably stifled or regretted jokes that were amusing to us at the time but would fall flat in retrospect.

    Now, some of us here wouldn’t mind Steve being even more freewheeling, but it’s also true that his intellectual ‘brand’ is strengthened by his gentlemanly nature. He’s often wryly sarcastic, but doesn’t dish out nasty ad hominem attacks, for example. This builds valuable trust between pundit and public.

    Those of us jokers who are pseudonymous in the comment section can have more fun, and indeed it seems that Steve, to his credit, has relaxed over the past couple of years regarding moderation. Maybe some of us more cheeky deplorables are influencing the tone of the blog. :)

    TLDR; Steve got a lot of valid pushback, reconsidered the content, and killed the post—and I’m sure it wasn’t done ‘at whim.’ (And I wouldn’t fault him if he left it up.) To me, that’s good enough.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  94. @RadicalCenter
    Interesting fact, thank you. But isn't India a country containing many distinct and not entirely compatible nations? Each such nation differs from the others often in two of three critical ways: ethnicity, language, or religion.

    You and your Eurasian family would fit right in India. You don’t fit in the West.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    You and your Eurasian family would fit right in India. You don’t fit in the West.
     
    That's only true if you insist that a nation-state must be 100% monoracial and unadulterated. Perhaps there is a case for keeping nation-states that way if that was their original condition, but once the race becomes adulterated with racial admixture and the attendant human relationships (for every pairwise racial crossing there's probably four or five individuals who become inured against monoracialism ), hitting upon a politically viable sorting mechanism for who's in and who's out becomes nigh on impossible.

    It's all very well to dream up formulas about percentages and proportions - the province of pro-white fantasists for decades - but to make any of it stick you need political power. If your formulas are too restrictive, you won't gain the support of a great enough portion of the population (which goes for both democratic means or violent overthrow), because too much of that population will have either genetic, familial or friendship links with those whom your formula would exclude.

    This wasn't a problem in countries like 1930's Germany, say, because racial adulteration was too small too inure enough people against monoracialist exclusivity. But modern America long ago passed the point where such a strategy was viable, and western Europe today is at best at the threshold but will almost surely pass it before all is said and done.

    People respond negatively to racial sorting proposals for two main reasons. The first is their obvious arbitrariness. No matter how or where you draw the racial "line," there will always be some people who just as well stand inside of it as outside of it (or vice-versa). Say you come up with an airtight genetic formula that anyone with 95.46% such-and-such genes or greater is acceptable. Well, what of someone with only 95.45% such-and-such genes, is he seriously so unacceptable? Really? Most people would call BS on that. And it doesn't matter how far up or down you move the percentage, the same problem obtains.

    The other reason that people respond negatively is their perception of the costs of exclusion. Hardcore white racialist fanatics are prepared to completely devastate someone's livelihood if he doesn't racially fit the bill. They couldn't care less what becomes of him. Most people, however, are simply not that callous. They wouldn't dream of shipping someone like "Radical Center" off to India. Hell, they wouldn't even dream of sending blacks "back" to Africa. (And rightly so, I say.) If this what they perceive pro-white racialism requires, then they want no part of it.

    Any serious, mature pro-white racialism that wants to have a whiff of a chance of defending white racial interests and securing white racial existence - I mean actually defending and actually securing, not just larping - really has no choice but to take all this into account. Any pro-white movement that doesn't will have no more success than lunatic William Pierce's laughable "vanguardist" efforts of the 80s and 90s. Like it or not, it is what it is.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  95. Anonym says:
    @Twinkie
    OT: What happened to that other post/thread with 160+ comments? Just erased from history? How about a retraction or a manly admission that it was in bad taste? Or are we to pretend that it never happened?

    I thought it was funny and should never have been retracted. Double down Mr Sailer! We shall never surrender!

    This speech has never been more timely. Britain has been overrun and we are expected by our “betters” in the media to not say s*** even though we’ve had a mouthful. They wanted to “rub the right’s nose in diversity”, traitor Blair ought to be hanged.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  96. mobi says:
    @Twinkie
    We all make mistakes or exercise poor judgment from time to time. But I respect men who admit their mistakes and make amends. That’s manly.

    Hiding such mistakes, instead, and acting like it never happened is... dishonest and unmanly. It’s one of the things I really hate about our current culture. Nobody ever manfully admits error in public. Okay, perhaps not “nobody,” but it seems to be the dominant practice to NOT admit mistakes and, if pressed, retreat to something weaselly like “Oh, I’m sorry IF you were offended.”

    What would have been the harm in our host admitting, “You know what? I thought about it again, and that was in poor taste. Sorry about that.”? He would have only gained more admirers.

    What would have been the harm in our host admitting, “You know what? I thought about it again, and that was in poor taste. Sorry about that.”?

    It’s implied. (And how do you know it wasn’t stated in the thread in question?).

    Get off your high horse, or offer something better.

    Nagging isn’t ‘manly’, by the way.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  97. (((globalist elites)))

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  98. @PiltdownMan

    Protip: nation-states don’t print their money with upwards of 5 scripts.
     
    India prints its money with 14 scripts (to my eye) but anyone who is well acquainted with the country would opine that it is very nation-statey, notwithstanding some low-level insurgencies in some poorer, more tribal parts of the country.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wYKI9f67kM0/TUG61JJeaJI/AAAAAAAAAKo/2dwIeT1n3qE/s1600/IndiaP44-100Rupees-%25281957-62%2529_b.jpg

    India is ‘nation-statey’ among its elite metropolitan classes (although not the super elite cosmopolitan ones), but very un-nationey at the middle and lower levels where caste still predominates as a form of social cohesion. The Indian nation state’s elite representatives have always been ‘all talk and no trousers’ as they discovered in the war with China in the 60′s . The Indian state lacks ‘reach’ into its own backwaters and hence focuses on ‘developing’ the creamy layers like IT and services of various kinds but has not been willing or able to promote the horizontal solidarities and discipline typical of real nations.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  99. may should be waterboarded in tajikistan until she recants her islamophilia.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  100. “These two groups now live in parallel social worlds and orient themselves using different cognitive maps.”

    America has many groups living in parallel social and economic worlds, notably the AA population, without explicit acknowledgement by either side. Bandaids to cover cosmetic differences, expensively, do not get to root causes. Failure to allow open discussion of causes and effects without name-calling or demonization only serve to exacerbate problems and burden new generations.

    Those able to distance themselves from parallel groups do so while the rest are left to bear the brunt. That is not a prescription for long-term societal health. Populist responses are likely to become louder and more insistent, as they have done so in many historical periods. This time is not different.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  101. @Yan Shen

    Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates.
     
    Isn't a belief in the primacy of the nation-state the mainstream view in East Asia? Of course we're talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.

    I've long been saying that in a country where blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart, the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh Lee Kuan Yew descended from the heavens to mete out some sense and discipline.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    America is a populist nation rather than an authoritarian one. In the spirit of colonial populism it needs a new form of populist democracy which reduces rather than increases racial conflict. The first thing to do is to make sure voters have a direct influence over immigration policy.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  102. Bill P says:
    @Twinkie
    We all make mistakes or exercise poor judgment from time to time. But I respect men who admit their mistakes and make amends. That’s manly.

    Hiding such mistakes, instead, and acting like it never happened is... dishonest and unmanly. It’s one of the things I really hate about our current culture. Nobody ever manfully admits error in public. Okay, perhaps not “nobody,” but it seems to be the dominant practice to NOT admit mistakes and, if pressed, retreat to something weaselly like “Oh, I’m sorry IF you were offended.”

    What would have been the harm in our host admitting, “You know what? I thought about it again, and that was in poor taste. Sorry about that.”? He would have only gained more admirers.

    I disagree. Steve’s working here as a writer. When he corrects a mistake, it’s called “editing” — something he has to do by himself, BTW.

    How many among us could exercise the restraint he’s demonstrated over decades of writing? Very few, I imagine, and the very people he’s competing against have a number of professionals to rely on to pore over their work for many hours before it’s released for public consumption. Can you imagine laboring under such a handicap and still holding your own?

    Even the most circumspect, timid MSM conservatives, such as Ross Douthat, flub their tweets more often than Steve Sailer hits his thumb with the hammer.

    Furthermore, imagine being a patriotic American living in Los Angeles, CALIFORNIA, and having to bite your tongue as the city and state of your birth go to hell. I couldn’t do it. At the very least, I’d have to move to the mountainous north part of the state if not abandon it altogether.

    Finally, think of what a craftsman does. If a master carpenter screws up for whatever reason – say the Romans have taken over his land and are putting up busts of their emperor all over the place, upsetting him badly – and makes a mistake, is he supposed to leave it there for the customer, and “manfully” admit that he made the mistake? Instead, maybe he could throw out the crooked beam or whatever it was, replace it with a true beam, and then finish the job to the customer’s satisfaction. That’s how you do a good job.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  103. Anon • Disclaimer says: • Website
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  104. pyrrhus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    With all due respect to Steve (and Trump and Bannon), civic nationalism won't work over the long run. Defining a people/country with words instead of blood is too easily manipulated, especially if you a cohesive group within that society that has remarkable verbal skills and a desire to manipulate.

    As I've said many times, the nation-state is the best defense against exploitive elites for several reasons. First, an undivided people can pull together to overthrow their elites far more easily than a fractious, ethnically diverse population that must set aside their own issues first. Second, an elite that feels a familial connection with their people would be less likely to allow long-term damage to that population. (This second reason is far weaker than the first. History is replete with examples of elites screwing over their own kind to win short-term gains. Still, the chances of an elite with little to no genetic ties to the overall population does up the odds that the elite will allow bad things to happen to those people.)

    Btw, my suspicion is that Steve's civic nationalism have always been a triple bank shot form of ethnic/racial nationalism. If you have a country that's dominated by one group and you limit immigration, by default you allow that group to remain in control. It's ethnic nationalism in the guise of civic nationalism.

    Much as we might like it to be otherwise, civic nationalism has consistently failed. Nations that endure have always been ethnically cohesive, with a strong emphasis on maintaining the dominant culture of the main ethnic group. The USA will be no different. If America continues to balkanize and diversify its population, it will eventually turn into the Balkans.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  105. Yan Shen says:
    @Twinkie
    We all make mistakes or exercise poor judgment from time to time. But I respect men who admit their mistakes and make amends. That’s manly.

    Hiding such mistakes, instead, and acting like it never happened is... dishonest and unmanly. It’s one of the things I really hate about our current culture. Nobody ever manfully admits error in public. Okay, perhaps not “nobody,” but it seems to be the dominant practice to NOT admit mistakes and, if pressed, retreat to something weaselly like “Oh, I’m sorry IF you were offended.”

    What would have been the harm in our host admitting, “You know what? I thought about it again, and that was in poor taste. Sorry about that.”? He would have only gained more admirers.

    What post did Steve remove? I can’t seem to remember off the top of my head…

    Read More
    • Replies: @Glaivester
    The one about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  106. Art Deco says:

    Much as we might like it to be otherwise, civic nationalism has consistently failed. Nations that endure

    We’ve had 400 years here.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Hmm. Tell me, Art, how long has the United States seen itself as a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society? Not 400 years.

    From the first colonists to 1965, the people that would create the colonies and then the United States saw this land as belonging to NW Europeans at best (but generally English and Scottish). Who was allowed to vote? Who dominated culture, business and politics? Who did the government repeatedly favor in immigration?

    Until 1965, this was a European country with Anglo-Saxon institutions. Other peoples were simply not considered fully a part of our society.

    That's the nation that endured and prospered for 350 years. The nation that you refer to has been around for ~50 years and is already showing cracks.

    Of course, you know this, yet you post such a comment, once again showing yourself to be a disingenious person who seeks to muddy the waters for some purpose.

    I eagerly await your typical supercilious response, "Well, you simply can't understand my remarkably erudite and insightful comment. I won't waste my time explaining myself to such an uneducated person such as yourself. I am scholar, after all."
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  107. @Pat Hannagan
    The world more or less has reached the “broad, sunlit uplands” that Churchill talked about in his “finest hour” speech in 1940. Advanced countries don’t go to war with each other anymore, obesity is becoming more of a problem than hunger, and so forth. It would be stupid to take the system of nationalism under which this has been achieved and blow it up out of boredom and malice.

    It's a point of constant fascination for me that you are able to write such contradictory gibberish yet seem to have not lapsed into early onset dementia.

    It’s a point of constant fascination for me that you are able to write such contradictory gibberish yet seem to have not lapsed into early onset dementia.

    Whereas you, OTOH, leave us wondering. Are your comments explicable only as a result of dementia, or does your hydrophobia explain it?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  108. Glaivester says: • Website
    @Yan Shen
    What post did Steve remove? I can't seem to remember off the top of my head...

    The one about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

    Read More
    • Replies: @anonguy

    The one about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.
     
    I'm glad he took it down. I don't know if he drinks or not, but it had all the trappings of an ill-advised posting under the influence.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  109. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    With all due respect to Steve (and Trump and Bannon), civic nationalism won't work over the long run. Defining a people/country with words instead of blood is too easily manipulated, especially if you a cohesive group within that society that has remarkable verbal skills and a desire to manipulate.

    As I've said many times, the nation-state is the best defense against exploitive elites for several reasons. First, an undivided people can pull together to overthrow their elites far more easily than a fractious, ethnically diverse population that must set aside their own issues first. Second, an elite that feels a familial connection with their people would be less likely to allow long-term damage to that population. (This second reason is far weaker than the first. History is replete with examples of elites screwing over their own kind to win short-term gains. Still, the chances of an elite with little to no genetic ties to the overall population does up the odds that the elite will allow bad things to happen to those people.)

    Btw, my suspicion is that Steve's civic nationalism have always been a triple bank shot form of ethnic/racial nationalism. If you have a country that's dominated by one group and you limit immigration, by default you allow that group to remain in control. It's ethnic nationalism in the guise of civic nationalism.

    With all due respect to Steve (and Trump and Bannon), civic nationalism won’t work over the long run.

    Nope, because it didn’t work for the Romans (just a flash in the pan), or for the Byzantines (just a richer, if smaller, pan). Nope, it can’t work at all.

    You are right that we have a huge problem with the elites. In fact, the elites are the problem. But your solution is unrealistic, and wholly divorced from the American experience.

    Maybe citizenism is suboptimal, but you have to offer a viable alternative. Otherwise we are in for a genuine fight – and, make no mistake, it is a death match. So if you don’t want to die in the Gulag, try helping instead of pining for a utopian delusion.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country

    But your solution is unrealistic, and wholly divorced from the American experience. . . So if you don’t want to die in the Gulag, try helping instead of pining for a utopian delusion.
     
    You misunderstand my comment. I was simply speaking about multi-everything societies in general and what is the optimal solution, i.e. nation-states work best.

    Our current situation would never allow such a solution. I have laid out many times what I believe to be the best, most realistic path for American whites who want their people to survive. I very cleverly call it the Act Like Jews (ALJ) plan.

    Whites should start very, very small. Create European-American (or some other less racial name) business groups or charities literally identical to Jewish or Asian American groups. These groups would be to help poor whites and to provide mentors for young whites in EXACTLY the same way that Jewish, Asian or women's groups do. (Indeed, I would use those other group's charters and legal documents to create our group, i.e. if you have a problem with us, you have a problem with them.) There would be absolutely nothing political about these groups. They are just trying to help a group of people that doesn't have much help from private groups at the moment.

    Once European American groups are established and no longer seen as Nazi breeding grounds, we could start moving slowly toward more political goals, eventually establishing lobby groups, ADL-type groups and think tanks so we could provide a paid venue for the Steve Sailers of the world.

    Bit by bit, you carve out your community with political power within the larger society.

    Basically, we'd just follow the Jewish model. No civil war. No white ethno-state in the NW.

    I'm already working on this in my own little way. Joining civic and business groups and looking for kindred spirits. As whites realize that they are becoming a minority, many of them will start to think like a minority and that will be the time to start moving forward.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  110. Pirelli says:

    I’m looking forward to reading Steve’s take on Bill Clinton’s op ed in the NYTimes today on a similar topic. It’s a far cry from “the ultimate wisdom of a borderless world.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  111. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Yan Shen

    Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates.
     
    Isn't a belief in the primacy of the nation-state the mainstream view in East Asia? Of course we're talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.

    I've long been saying that in a country where blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart, the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh Lee Kuan Yew descended from the heavens to mete out some sense and discipline.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    Are you thick? You keep posting the same old crap. Do you believe everything you read in the mainstream media? Do you realize it’s not necessarily true? Why do you keep posting this video?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Why do you keep posting this video?
     
    Because he - whoever he is - is a troll, and not a very original or entertaining one at that.

    He apparently has a chip on his shoulder and seems to want to draw some sort of personal validation from presenting East Asians as the most awesomest people in this country. I find him tiresome (and *I* am ethnically East Asian!) and gave him earlier the first "troll" marking I ever handed out here. And I haven't done that even for "Truth" and that other commenter who is always on about decrying white supremacy and people of color rising.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  112. @Faraday's Bobcat

    With all due respect to Steve (and Trump and Bannon), civic nationalism won’t work over the long run. Defining a people/country with words instead of blood is too easily manipulated, especially if you a cohesive group within that society that has remarkable verbal skills and a desire to manipulate.
     
    Because the status quo is open-borders extremism, it is tempting to take extreme positions in opposition, but where does it end? Must one's ancestors have spoken English in order to retain American citizenship? Are you going to send the Irish-Americans back to Ireland? (Well, maybe we should've got rid of Teddy Kennedy.)

    From what I remember, America was a reasonably happy and functional place at least up through the 1980s, and it wasn't an ethnostate. Cutting legal immigration, deporting illegals, getting rid of birthright citizenship, getting rid of the goddamned H-1B, banning dual citizenship and banning immigrants from getting affirmative action or welfare would put a huge dent in the problem, and all of those things would probably win in a referendum today.

    From what I remember, America was a reasonably happy and functional place at least up through the 1980s, and it wasn’t an ethnostate.

    Yeah, it kind of was. Up to 1965, it was 85% to 90% white. Even by the 1980s, it was still 75% to 85% white and Anglo-Saxon culture and institutions were dominant, so it was American-European ethno-state.

    That being said, I agree generally agree with your prescriptions. However, to enact such draconian measures – and they are – there would need to be an open acceptance by whites that we want the United States to remain at the very least a semi-ethnostate dominated by whites. Otherwise, why do we want to stop all of those good people from coming to our country and being “Americans” just like us.

    Because the status quo is open-borders extremism, it is tempting to take extreme positions in opposition

    It’s not tempting; it’s necessary. You might have noticed to that talking nice hasn’t worked so well.

    but where does it end? Must one’s ancestors have spoken English in order to retain American citizenship? Are you going to send the Irish-Americans back to Ireland?

    Irish-Americans look and act pretty white to me. And since my kids have some Mc in them, I’ll let the Irish stick around. ;)

    But that argument is similar to “Well, there’s no perfect definition of the color orange so there’s no color orange” or because sometimes it’s tough to define where one neighborhood ends and another begins, there’s no such thing as neighborhoods.

    I’ll ask the Japanese or Koreans to help me out on the whole who gets in and who doesn’t. I’m pretty sure that we can figure it out.

    Regardless, I’m not so deluded as to think as of this will happen. The best hope for American whites is that we slowly start thinking of ourselves an ethnic group because we noticed that everybody else does and that we start forming ethic groups/enclaves like everyone else.

    Basically, our best shot is to act like Jews. There will be no American white ethno-state, but we can carve out a piece of the coming multi-everything society.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Faraday's Bobcat

    Yeah, it kind of was. Up to 1965, it was 85% to 90% white. Even by the 1980s, it was still 75% to 85% white and Anglo-Saxon culture and institutions were dominant, so it was American-European ethno-state.
     
    If that's your definition of an ethnostate, then I can live with it. But you get people around here thinking they're going to deport everyone who puts red pepper in their food.
    , @silviosilver

    Regardless, I’m not so deluded as to think as of this will happen. The best hope for American whites is that we slowly start thinking of ourselves an ethnic group because we noticed that everybody else does and that we start forming ethic groups/enclaves like everyone else.

    Basically, our best shot is to act like Jews. There will be no American white ethno-state, but we can carve out a piece of the coming multi-everything society.
     
    If this is what you believe, should you not then be seeking out alliances with other groups who would support you in that effort, in return for your support for their efforts?

    It would seem the most logical thing in the world, and yet my experience with people who claim to think as you do above is that they prefer to slap away a helping hand from other groups. It is almost as if they are saying "You bastards are the agents of my racial demise, and now you want to present yourselves as my saviors? No dice!" In other words, if WASP types are going to have their enclaves (or whatever), then it's going to be solely through their own efforts, not from working in cahoots with anybody else.

    There seems to be a strong element of cutting off your nose to spite your face involved here, because it is hard to see how you'd getting a better deal working in isolation.

    Perhaps it's all about keeping some gunpowder dry just in case, miracle of miracles, the opportunity for one last crack at racial vengeance presents itself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  113. @Orwellian State

    The reason the far left screams about “No Borders” is because they fear conflict and thus want to drag us back to the communal, egalitarian muck.
     
    The reason the far left wants open borders is because they are all Jewish and there's nothing Jews fear more than united white power. In a nation of all or mostly whites, Jews are at the bottom of the totem pole. But in a multicultural country, there will be constant division as white power is diluted, and Jews can be at the top.

    In a nation of all or mostly whites, Jews are at the bottom of the totem pole.

    Jews have never been at the bottom of the totem pole in America. Jews don’t need the stupid policies our elites have imposed on us to do well.

    If you could wave your magic wand and realize your wish, we would still have all the problems that we have now. Leftists are over-represented in the Children of Israel, but there are plenty of Leftists that are not.

    It is the Left that is the enemy of the American people. And when your focus is redirected elsewhere, you reduce the chances that we can win this.

    Read More
    • Agree: Ian M.
    • Replies: @Semper Fidelis

    Jews have never been at the bottom of the totem pole in America. Jews don’t need the stupid policies our elites have imposed on us to do well.

    If you could wave your magic wand and realize your wish, we would still have all the problems that we have now. Leftists are over-represented in the Children of Israel, but there are plenty of Leftists that are not.
     

    Jews certainly started out at the bottom of the totem pole when they first immigrated to the US. Many were poor and looked down upon by the WASPs. Harvard came up with the SAT to recruit rural and midwestern gentile kids, but when NY Jews started dominating the exam, they switched to holistic admission to limit enrollment by the Jewish "greasy grinds", but they still allowed at least 15% in each year.

    Jews are incredibly tribal. As those who graduated from the Ivy League began to break into the media, academia, Wall Street, Hollywood, the law profession, the deep state, the DNC, the GOP through the neocons, Silicon Valley, they stick to hiring and funding their own tribe to the point where they now dominate all these institutions.

    By far the worst thing conservatives ever did was allowing the Jews to take over academia. First they took over all the universities, mostly in the liberal arts dept, from there they indoctrinated all the future journalists who went on to dominate mainstream media and browbeat/intimidated all gentile elites into submission, future lawyers who went on to dominate the judiciary bench and interpret laws as they see fit, future politicians and deep state employees who turned the deep state deeply blue, and most importantly, future teachers, who went on to indoctrinate all our kids K-12.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  114. @Nick Diaz
    Now this is rich. Trying to ascribe the enormous scientific and economic progress over the last two centuries to nation-states, when in reality such progress is due to the values of the Enlightnment. There were nation-states before the XVIIIth century, like the Parthian Empire and Han China, and yet there was very little scientific and cultural progress during that time. The Byzantine Empire was also a classic nation-state, and yet for some 400 years it stagnated and had nothing to show for.

    In fact, strong nation-states has historically been at odds with entrepeuners, scientists and artists, and tried to blot progress because it didn't fit their nationalist ideology. The classic example is Nazi Germany, where art, science and industry were controlled by the state, and any type of contribution had to be analysed on the grounds of whether it was "Aryan", "Germanic" or not. The U.S.S.R was a strong nation-state, with all the characteristics of a strong nation-state, from national borders to a national army, and yet it ended capitalist freedom. Trying to say that nationalism is responsible for the success of capitalism and science is asinine and easily refuted by the historical evidence.

    No, the progress of the last two centuries were due to the Enlightnment values of personal freedom, rationalism and a limited government. In fact, the countries that progressed the most were those that gave individuals the highest degree of freedom and were the least nationalistic, like England and France. The strong nation-states with lesser personal freedom, like Prussia and Tsarist Russia, took much longer to develop.

    Of course, Sailer completely glosses over the *tragedy* that nationalism causes. Roughly 80% of all wars are caused by nationalism, with the other 20% being caused by religion. In the XXth century alone, nationalism killed some 100 million human beings. Just WWII alone had an estimated death toll of some 55 million people. I guess Sailer finds the death of tens of millions of young men a small price to pay in exchange for his contrived and poorly substantiated argument that nationalism fosters economic and scientific progress. I know that, to conservatives, the lives of young men are disposable cannon fodder to be sacrificed in the altar of national greatness - and Sailer has expressed sympathy for the military draft -, but I think otherwise. As Einstein once said:

    "Nationalism is the cancer of Mankind."



    And, of course, Sailer and his minions don't really understand what globalisation is. It is not some "conspiracy" on the part of plutocrats to destroy the nation-state; rather, globalisation is a process that has been going on since the late Pleistocene era some 30,000 years go, when the first tribes of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers decided to trade with other tribes for mutual benefit. Tribes eventually coalesced into fixed communities with the development of agriculture at the beggining of the Neolithic era, to the formation of the first city-state by the end of the Copper age some 7,000 years ago , to eventually nation-states and empires.

    Globalisation is the progression of that. Simple as that. It is fostered by the development of technology, and has nothing to do with politics. As communications and transporations technology develops, business, that before could only be done locally or nationally, can now be done globally. It is simply the result of more advanced science. Just like the development of agriculture allowed for the formation of the first settled communities, and city-states, the development of roads allowed for distant communities to coalesce into nations with large territories, now the massive growth of communications technology has shrunk the World even more. Globalisation is a technological process that has been going on since the Pleistocene, but Sailer and his minions cannot connect the dots. In fact, Sailer and his minions have demonstrated an amazing inability to connect the dots. It's a good thing that I am here to think for them. Someone has to do it.

    What we are actually going through with globalisation at this stage is that we are progressing to becoming a Type I civilization in the Kardashev Scale. The internet, for instance, is a global communication platform. A Type I civilization is a global unified civilization that harnesses all the energy and productive capacity of a planet. With the development of thermonuclear weapons in the 1950's, the obsolescence of nation-states became a matter of time. Thermonuclear weapons make national borders redundant, and represent a risk of global catastrophe. Eventually, a one World government will be needed to avoid mass extinction, as terrorists will soon be able to make these weapons. With the development of communications technology, the nation-state became obsolete economically as well.

    Deal with it: you guys are living fossils, as well as your ideas. The World you want is not sustainable in the long-run. It's either globalisation or mass extinction or stagnation. In fact, we might not make it. Maybe the development of a global society will lose out to nationalism, and eventually these nation-states, all armed with nukes and wanting to uphold their national interests, will simply erradicate the human species.

    I truly hope people like you lose out in the end. For the good of Mankind.

    Nick Diaz, once again demonstrating that historical illiteracy, contempt for experience, and fallacious reasoning do not preclude one from posting here.

    Thanks Nick. And stay away from my cats.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  115. @Art Deco
    Much as we might like it to be otherwise, civic nationalism has consistently failed. Nations that endure

    We've had 400 years here.

    Hmm. Tell me, Art, how long has the United States seen itself as a multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-cultural society? Not 400 years.

    From the first colonists to 1965, the people that would create the colonies and then the United States saw this land as belonging to NW Europeans at best (but generally English and Scottish). Who was allowed to vote? Who dominated culture, business and politics? Who did the government repeatedly favor in immigration?

    Until 1965, this was a European country with Anglo-Saxon institutions. Other peoples were simply not considered fully a part of our society.

    That’s the nation that endured and prospered for 350 years. The nation that you refer to has been around for ~50 years and is already showing cracks.

    Of course, you know this, yet you post such a comment, once again showing yourself to be a disingenious person who seeks to muddy the waters for some purpose.

    I eagerly await your typical supercilious response, “Well, you simply can’t understand my remarkably erudite and insightful comment. I won’t waste my time explaining myself to such an uneducated person such as yourself. I am scholar, after all.”

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  116. Why Gut Level Native Born White American Racial Tribalism is good:

    1)The passage of the 1888 Chinese Legal Immigrant Exclusion Act

    2)When Michigan and Idaho City Idaho were Native Born White American Christian

    3)When Utica NY was not colonized by Bosnian Muslim Legal Immigrants…

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  117. Joe Walker says: • Website

    Curiously, some of the people who are globalists when it comes to Europe and the United States are nationalists when it comes to Israel.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  118. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    From what I remember, America was a reasonably happy and functional place at least up through the 1980s, and it wasn’t an ethnostate.
     
    Yeah, it kind of was. Up to 1965, it was 85% to 90% white. Even by the 1980s, it was still 75% to 85% white and Anglo-Saxon culture and institutions were dominant, so it was American-European ethno-state.

    That being said, I agree generally agree with your prescriptions. However, to enact such draconian measures - and they are - there would need to be an open acceptance by whites that we want the United States to remain at the very least a semi-ethnostate dominated by whites. Otherwise, why do we want to stop all of those good people from coming to our country and being "Americans" just like us.

    Because the status quo is open-borders extremism, it is tempting to take extreme positions in opposition
     
    It's not tempting; it's necessary. You might have noticed to that talking nice hasn't worked so well.

    but where does it end? Must one’s ancestors have spoken English in order to retain American citizenship? Are you going to send the Irish-Americans back to Ireland?

     

    Irish-Americans look and act pretty white to me. And since my kids have some Mc in them, I'll let the Irish stick around. ;)

    But that argument is similar to "Well, there's no perfect definition of the color orange so there's no color orange" or because sometimes it's tough to define where one neighborhood ends and another begins, there's no such thing as neighborhoods.

    I'll ask the Japanese or Koreans to help me out on the whole who gets in and who doesn't. I'm pretty sure that we can figure it out.

    Regardless, I'm not so deluded as to think as of this will happen. The best hope for American whites is that we slowly start thinking of ourselves an ethnic group because we noticed that everybody else does and that we start forming ethic groups/enclaves like everyone else.

    Basically, our best shot is to act like Jews. There will be no American white ethno-state, but we can carve out a piece of the coming multi-everything society.

    Yeah, it kind of was. Up to 1965, it was 85% to 90% white. Even by the 1980s, it was still 75% to 85% white and Anglo-Saxon culture and institutions were dominant, so it was American-European ethno-state.

    If that’s your definition of an ethnostate, then I can live with it. But you get people around here thinking they’re going to deport everyone who puts red pepper in their food.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    Because they have higher birth rates. Unless you want to start sterilizing the mestizos, we are going to be kicking a substantial portion of the country out.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  119. @Twinkie
    We all make mistakes or exercise poor judgment from time to time. But I respect men who admit their mistakes and make amends. That’s manly.

    Hiding such mistakes, instead, and acting like it never happened is... dishonest and unmanly. It’s one of the things I really hate about our current culture. Nobody ever manfully admits error in public. Okay, perhaps not “nobody,” but it seems to be the dominant practice to NOT admit mistakes and, if pressed, retreat to something weaselly like “Oh, I’m sorry IF you were offended.”

    What would have been the harm in our host admitting, “You know what? I thought about it again, and that was in poor taste. Sorry about that.”? He would have only gained more admirers.

    I understand your point. When I read the post in question, I thought it a bit crass and unusual for Steve, but then again, who am I to judge? One thing I don’t envy about Steve’s position is the general expectation of him to be ‘respectable’ in some way.

    I’m sure there’s a lot that Steve might like to say, but doesn’t, because he’s not anonymous and if you’re in full ‘shoot the shit’ mode, stuff can blow back (e.g. Donald Trump in the Access Hollywood bus). Of course, it need not be ‘scandalous’ content—all of us have probably stifled or regretted jokes that were amusing to us at the time but would fall flat in retrospect.

    Now, some of us here wouldn’t mind Steve being even more freewheeling, but it’s also true that his intellectual ‘brand’ is strengthened by his gentlemanly nature. He’s often wryly sarcastic, but doesn’t dish out nasty ad hominem attacks, for example. This builds valuable trust between pundit and public.

    Those of us jokers who are pseudonymous in the comment section can have more fun, and indeed it seems that Steve, to his credit, has relaxed over the past couple of years regarding moderation. Maybe some of us more cheeky deplorables are influencing the tone of the blog. :)

    TLDR; Steve got a lot of valid pushback, reconsidered the content, and killed the post—and I’m sure it wasn’t done ‘at whim.’ (And I wouldn’t fault him if he left it up.) To me, that’s good enough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    You make fair points.

    I would add one more consideration to what I wrote earlier in regards to matters of good manners and taste. Mr. Sailer, despite being an avowed "citizenist," is often attacked by the mainstream media as a racist. There is no reason to provide the latter with more ammunition (especially "there is fire where there is smoke" type of ammunition, to which that post came close). Writing something like that and then erasing it (rather than publicly retracting it) comes off as hiding something. It's not like his enemies don't read him, after all. Someone can easily reproduce it online and say "See, we all knew he was a racist all along. He wrote that blacks should be laborers and biracial women should be prostitutes [for the gratification of white men]. Then he tried to hide it!"

    I don't want to belabor the point. I would simply say, if it was bad enough to (publish and then) erase it quickly, it's bad enough to apologize for it.

    Steve got a lot of valid pushback
     
    Did he? I read only a handful of comments critiquing it among the 160+, most of which seemed to egg it on gleefully, to the discredit of the audience here. Of course, all that reader "contribution" as such is gone too.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  120. @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    In a nation of all or mostly whites, Jews are at the bottom of the totem pole.
     
    Jews have never been at the bottom of the totem pole in America. Jews don't need the stupid policies our elites have imposed on us to do well.

    If you could wave your magic wand and realize your wish, we would still have all the problems that we have now. Leftists are over-represented in the Children of Israel, but there are plenty of Leftists that are not.

    It is the Left that is the enemy of the American people. And when your focus is redirected elsewhere, you reduce the chances that we can win this.

    Jews have never been at the bottom of the totem pole in America. Jews don’t need the stupid policies our elites have imposed on us to do well.

    If you could wave your magic wand and realize your wish, we would still have all the problems that we have now. Leftists are over-represented in the Children of Israel, but there are plenty of Leftists that are not.

    Jews certainly started out at the bottom of the totem pole when they first immigrated to the US. Many were poor and looked down upon by the WASPs. Harvard came up with the SAT to recruit rural and midwestern gentile kids, but when NY Jews started dominating the exam, they switched to holistic admission to limit enrollment by the Jewish “greasy grinds”, but they still allowed at least 15% in each year.

    Jews are incredibly tribal. As those who graduated from the Ivy League began to break into the media, academia, Wall Street, Hollywood, the law profession, the deep state, the DNC, the GOP through the neocons, Silicon Valley, they stick to hiring and funding their own tribe to the point where they now dominate all these institutions.

    By far the worst thing conservatives ever did was allowing the Jews to take over academia. First they took over all the universities, mostly in the liberal arts dept, from there they indoctrinated all the future journalists who went on to dominate mainstream media and browbeat/intimidated all gentile elites into submission, future lawyers who went on to dominate the judiciary bench and interpret laws as they see fit, future politicians and deep state employees who turned the deep state deeply blue, and most importantly, future teachers, who went on to indoctrinate all our kids K-12.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Jews are incredibly tribal. A

    Most nowadays intermarry and have no religious affiliation. The most inclined toward endogamy and fertility are Orthodox Jews who are the least ambitious segment of the Jewish populaiton.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  121. I shall welease… Wodwik!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  122. @Nick Diaz
    Now this is rich. Trying to ascribe the enormous scientific and economic progress over the last two centuries to nation-states, when in reality such progress is due to the values of the Enlightnment. There were nation-states before the XVIIIth century, like the Parthian Empire and Han China, and yet there was very little scientific and cultural progress during that time. The Byzantine Empire was also a classic nation-state, and yet for some 400 years it stagnated and had nothing to show for.

    In fact, strong nation-states has historically been at odds with entrepeuners, scientists and artists, and tried to blot progress because it didn't fit their nationalist ideology. The classic example is Nazi Germany, where art, science and industry were controlled by the state, and any type of contribution had to be analysed on the grounds of whether it was "Aryan", "Germanic" or not. The U.S.S.R was a strong nation-state, with all the characteristics of a strong nation-state, from national borders to a national army, and yet it ended capitalist freedom. Trying to say that nationalism is responsible for the success of capitalism and science is asinine and easily refuted by the historical evidence.

    No, the progress of the last two centuries were due to the Enlightnment values of personal freedom, rationalism and a limited government. In fact, the countries that progressed the most were those that gave individuals the highest degree of freedom and were the least nationalistic, like England and France. The strong nation-states with lesser personal freedom, like Prussia and Tsarist Russia, took much longer to develop.

    Of course, Sailer completely glosses over the *tragedy* that nationalism causes. Roughly 80% of all wars are caused by nationalism, with the other 20% being caused by religion. In the XXth century alone, nationalism killed some 100 million human beings. Just WWII alone had an estimated death toll of some 55 million people. I guess Sailer finds the death of tens of millions of young men a small price to pay in exchange for his contrived and poorly substantiated argument that nationalism fosters economic and scientific progress. I know that, to conservatives, the lives of young men are disposable cannon fodder to be sacrificed in the altar of national greatness - and Sailer has expressed sympathy for the military draft -, but I think otherwise. As Einstein once said:

    "Nationalism is the cancer of Mankind."



    And, of course, Sailer and his minions don't really understand what globalisation is. It is not some "conspiracy" on the part of plutocrats to destroy the nation-state; rather, globalisation is a process that has been going on since the late Pleistocene era some 30,000 years go, when the first tribes of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers decided to trade with other tribes for mutual benefit. Tribes eventually coalesced into fixed communities with the development of agriculture at the beggining of the Neolithic era, to the formation of the first city-state by the end of the Copper age some 7,000 years ago , to eventually nation-states and empires.

    Globalisation is the progression of that. Simple as that. It is fostered by the development of technology, and has nothing to do with politics. As communications and transporations technology develops, business, that before could only be done locally or nationally, can now be done globally. It is simply the result of more advanced science. Just like the development of agriculture allowed for the formation of the first settled communities, and city-states, the development of roads allowed for distant communities to coalesce into nations with large territories, now the massive growth of communications technology has shrunk the World even more. Globalisation is a technological process that has been going on since the Pleistocene, but Sailer and his minions cannot connect the dots. In fact, Sailer and his minions have demonstrated an amazing inability to connect the dots. It's a good thing that I am here to think for them. Someone has to do it.

    What we are actually going through with globalisation at this stage is that we are progressing to becoming a Type I civilization in the Kardashev Scale. The internet, for instance, is a global communication platform. A Type I civilization is a global unified civilization that harnesses all the energy and productive capacity of a planet. With the development of thermonuclear weapons in the 1950's, the obsolescence of nation-states became a matter of time. Thermonuclear weapons make national borders redundant, and represent a risk of global catastrophe. Eventually, a one World government will be needed to avoid mass extinction, as terrorists will soon be able to make these weapons. With the development of communications technology, the nation-state became obsolete economically as well.

    Deal with it: you guys are living fossils, as well as your ideas. The World you want is not sustainable in the long-run. It's either globalisation or mass extinction or stagnation. In fact, we might not make it. Maybe the development of a global society will lose out to nationalism, and eventually these nation-states, all armed with nukes and wanting to uphold their national interests, will simply erradicate the human species.

    I truly hope people like you lose out in the end. For the good of Mankind.

    I think Rodrik would say that your analysis focuses far too much on the “nation” side of “nation-state” and far too little on the “state” side, which in Rodrik’s view was the key driver of these innovations. So while nations certainly did exist in the past, they were tremendously lacking in the “stateness” of modern nation-states.

    I intensely dislike ethno-nationalism for many of the same reasons that lefties do, but in contrast I think recognizing racial reality and promoting racial identity are a must – it’s insanity to forge ahead without them.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  123. @Jason Liu
    I agree. But the left doesn't. To them, hierarchy and conflict are inseparable.

    There is hierarchy in the sense that neither individuals nor groups are in actual fact equal. Recognizing this is just recognizing reality for what it is. I would say this still allows for an ethic of treating people as equally as possible, but not more so.

    Then there is hierarchy in the sense of a value system, which focuses on, emphasizes and, intentionally or otherwise, exaggerates the degree to which individuals and groups are unequal, and which has no interest in or desire to treat anyone or anything equally. The social effect is that people become obsessed with being superior to other individuals and groups; obsessed with identifying and promoting the very best that their culture has produced and presenting it as superior to anybody else’s cultural products. You wouldn’t be far wrong if you called this the essence of fascism. If you read their blogs, this certainly seems to be what animates the neo-nazi types – a fanatical obsession with presenting themselves as the greatest who ever lived and the greatest there will ever be. It’s more or less straight out race-worship.

    I think lefties are wrong to fear that the former will necessarily lead to conflict (at least wrong to fear it to the paralyzing extent that they do), but quite right to fear that the latter will.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    There is hierarchy in the sense that neither individuals nor groups are in actual fact equal. Recognizing this is just recognizing reality for what it is. I would say this still allows for an ethic of treating people as equally as possible, but not more so.
     
    I would like to point out that this still leaves a lot of room for equal treatment, both individual and group.

    I have done my share of reading up on Nietzschean morality and even though his arguments often make sense, I don't find them emotionally compelling. I think "slave" morality makes for a much nicer world than "master" morality. We can probably all think of someone who is much more accomplished than ourselves - would you prefer he treated you haughtily as befits someone of his exalted station, or kindly and compassionately? To ask is to answer, really. And of course you would have been far better off as a proletarian in the "slavish" EU than in the "masterly" Roman empire, that's just obvious - and that would be true even if the latter were no more economically advanced than Rome. So the fact that people/s are not remotely equal in any fact-based sense hardly matters to me in terms of the treatment I think they should be afforded.

    The obvious changes would be things like ceasing the bellyaching over "achievement gaps." These would just be accepted as unremarkable facts of reality. What would instead concern us is whether people are making sufficient absolute progress, not whether gaps are being relatively closed or not. Isn't it better if both your income and Warren Buffet's increase at 10% per annum than if yours increases by 2% and his by 1%? Well, Gore Vidal said "It's not enough to succeed; others must fail," so if this is true, then only the latter case satisfies this condition, but I think this reasoning only makes sense with respect to a personal rival. If I don't know Warren Buffet, and I don't move in the same social circles, I wouldn't be bummed if he was moving away from me provided I was making satisfactory absolute progress. (I've only mentioned income here, but you could extend the same reasoning to numerous other spheres.)
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  124. Twinkie says:
    @Jenner Ickham Errican
    I understand your point. When I read the post in question, I thought it a bit crass and unusual for Steve, but then again, who am I to judge? One thing I don’t envy about Steve’s position is the general expectation of him to be ‘respectable’ in some way.

    I’m sure there’s a lot that Steve might like to say, but doesn’t, because he’s not anonymous and if you’re in full ‘shoot the shit’ mode, stuff can blow back (e.g. Donald Trump in the Access Hollywood bus). Of course, it need not be ‘scandalous’ content—all of us have probably stifled or regretted jokes that were amusing to us at the time but would fall flat in retrospect.

    Now, some of us here wouldn’t mind Steve being even more freewheeling, but it’s also true that his intellectual ‘brand’ is strengthened by his gentlemanly nature. He’s often wryly sarcastic, but doesn’t dish out nasty ad hominem attacks, for example. This builds valuable trust between pundit and public.

    Those of us jokers who are pseudonymous in the comment section can have more fun, and indeed it seems that Steve, to his credit, has relaxed over the past couple of years regarding moderation. Maybe some of us more cheeky deplorables are influencing the tone of the blog. :)

    TLDR; Steve got a lot of valid pushback, reconsidered the content, and killed the post—and I’m sure it wasn’t done ‘at whim.’ (And I wouldn’t fault him if he left it up.) To me, that’s good enough.

    You make fair points.

    I would add one more consideration to what I wrote earlier in regards to matters of good manners and taste. Mr. Sailer, despite being an avowed “citizenist,” is often attacked by the mainstream media as a racist. There is no reason to provide the latter with more ammunition (especially “there is fire where there is smoke” type of ammunition, to which that post came close). Writing something like that and then erasing it (rather than publicly retracting it) comes off as hiding something. It’s not like his enemies don’t read him, after all. Someone can easily reproduce it online and say “See, we all knew he was a racist all along. He wrote that blacks should be laborers and biracial women should be prostitutes [for the gratification of white men]. Then he tried to hide it!”

    I don’t want to belabor the point. I would simply say, if it was bad enough to (publish and then) erase it quickly, it’s bad enough to apologize for it.

    Steve got a lot of valid pushback

    Did he? I read only a handful of comments critiquing it among the 160+, most of which seemed to egg it on gleefully, to the discredit of the audience here. Of course, all that reader “contribution” as such is gone too.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jenner Ickham Errican

    I would simply say, if it was bad enough to (publish and then) erase it quickly, it’s bad enough to apologize for it.
     
    Nah. If it was that lame, he’s right to nix it and say no more. Come to think of it, we aren’t helping. ;)

    It’ll soon be Christmas. Surely you’ll allow a mulligan for our gracious host.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  125. Twinkie says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Interesting. Touches on a lot of what I've thought.

    However, I think that Twinkie makes the same mistake at Steve. Twinkie seems to be something of a white majoritarian civic nationalist. Given equal rights to all citizens regardless of race but maintain the white majority and white culture as the dominant culture of the country.


    You confuse white majoritarianism with white supremacism. You can’t believe in citizenism while being a white supremacist. Citizenism, by definition, confers legal legitimacy and equality to fellow – existing – citizens, whatever their race. Meanwhile white supremacism, by definition, is the legal privileging of one race, i.e. whites.

    White majoritarianism – the idea that whites should continue to be the majority of the population and that the cultural and civic traditions of that majority should predominate in the shared national culture – is compatible with citizenism.
     

    I'd suspect that everyone (or almost everyone) who signed the 1965 Immigration Act were white majoritarians. The problem is that once you no longer define a country by its people, you no longer have a nation-state, you have a proposition nation - a country defined by words. Once that happens, those words are open to interpretation - especially by those with kick-ass verbal skills and an agenda.

    You become a "Nation of Immigrants." Diversity is our Strength! Etc.

    The only way to keep a certain people as the majority of a 1st world country is to explicity acknowledge that the country belongs to that people and that the government will never allow them to fall below a certain percentage of the population - say 90%. Once that number is hit, all immigration is halted.

    And that gets you back to the dreaded white nationalism. It's also a form of white supremacy in the sense that this brand of whites says openly and proudly, "We want this country for us because we prefer to see 90% white faces in our towns and cities." That's a form of racism, the kind of racism that you see in Japan, Israel, China, etc. The kind of racism born of pride and self-respect, not hatred.

    Otherwise, you end up with France and Britain. Slow motion race replacement. (Well, slow at first.)

    There was one final passage from Twinkie that I think is important and where I disagree with him. He states:


    The problem with many white nationalist types (of course, I am not suggesting that you are necessarily one of them) is that they fixate on race to the total exclusion of other things. Race is important, but it’s not everything, and it doesn’t correspond perfectly with culture/ideology/religion and a whole host of other variables that make the human beings/society.
     
    A few years ago, I would have agreed with him. But with time, I'm beginning to realize that for a 1st world people to maintain themselves agains the onslaught of globalization, migration and other forces that would like to see whites disappear as a people, that, in fact, we do need to fixate on race to near exclusion of everything else; otherwise, again, you bound yourself to pretty words that can be manipulated by the media, academia and politicians.

    Try to tell a group of Japanese that Africans can become just as "Japanese" as they are and therefore they should allow some immigration from Africa. When they get done laughing, they'll tell you to go to hell because they know a simple truth that no one trick them on: Japanese is defined by blood.

    Yet, you could tell a bunch of American whites that Africans can become just as "American" as they are, and most of them will believe you. That's why Steve (and Twinkie) are wrong. Their nice civic nationalism leads us right where American whites are today, fading, demoralized and not even aware that they are a people.

    Yet, you could tell a bunch of American whites that Africans can become just as “American” as they are, and most of them will believe you. That’s why Steve (and Twinkie) are wrong.

    I don’t know about Mr. Sailer, but that is certainly a mischaracterization of my view. I think some ethno-national groups are more assimilative than others. And I base this not on my personal opinions and anecdotes, but on concrete studies of proxies that approximate reasonable definitions of assimilation (economic, cultural, and social in the study): https://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_76.pdf

    And even with high-assimilation groups, numbers – as Mr. Derbyshire would say – is of paramount importance. Too many immigrants of any stripe are liable to slow assimilation (which is why I support immigration restriction, both legal or otherwise, given the currently rather high percentage of foreign-born population, among whom I am one).

    The other important factor is what people such as Mark Krikorian (CIS) has long preached over the years (that is, long before “Alt-Right” and Trump became things of note) – that assimilation requires the host society to encourage assimilation (I know, crazy, right?). And we all know our society doesn’t anymore. That’s something we need to fix badly. From my day one in America, I learned to say the Pledge of Allegiance – in essence I was encouraged to give fealty to God, country, and community here. That just simply isn’t done, because our elite stratum has been captured by those who feel greater kinship with elites in other societies rather than the “lowborn” of our own. I think it’s likely that more recent graduates of the Ivy League went on to work in investment/banking in London than served in Afghanistan or Iraq.

    To recap, is “civic nationalism” workable today? Probably not. Not with high immigration (and of the wrong type) and not with a “multicultural” elite that doesn’t insist on traditional American patriotism and assimilation. What then, should be the answer? Full on race war? Racial separation? Or work through political and social forces to recapture (or rebuild) some of the institutions and re-enact immigration restriction and assimilation? Which is more likely to succeed? Which is less likely to cause suffering?

    Remember that while reform is difficult to achieve, breaking a society is nearly irreversible. I say we owe our children an earnest attempt at the former, before we take the drastic and likely highly destructive step toward the latter… because if that latter were to come about, it won’t be the current generation of adults paying the deepest price. It will be the children (along with the old and the infirm).

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    I really don't want to cast aspersions, but even though your post makes a lot of sense, I can't avoid feeling there is something fundamentally dishonest about it, as though you are willfully skirting the issue of white racial survival. Otherwise I can't understand why you relentlessly conflate the issue of cultural assimilation with the issue of white racial identity. I mean, it really should be obvious that culturally assimilating non-whites would accelerate white extinction, not prevent it. If non-whites remain culturally distinct, then this lessens the chances they will mix with whites, which in turn buys whites badly needed time to racially organize. So you are really not addressing Citizen of a Silly Country's main concern at all.

    Now, I suppose Citizen would agree that if white racial survival is deemed unacceptable or is determined to be impossible, that if whites have no other choice than to accept eventual racial extinction, then clearly it would be better for whites to be racially obliterated by people who are culturally familiar and friendly than by people who are culturally alien and hostile. At least if whites are obliterated by friendly and familiar non-whites, then one could fairly say that sure, whites lost their race, but it was such a fun ride all the way down, who can blame them? So cultural assimilation is not without its merits, because the way things stand today, it will not be a fun ride, it will be an endless ordeal. But the honest thing to do is to make this clear in your posts, not to pretend to want the same thing as Citizen when you are, in fact, arguing for something distinctly different.

    Kudos to you for even participating in this discussion, though. I have been doing "race talk" for so long I have forgotten how jarring, how emotionally distressing, it can be when it's first encountered, especially when it's prepared to go all the way down the rabbit hole, rather than prematurely terminating itself the minute the going gets tough.

    , @Citizen of a Silly Country
    What silviosilver said.

    But I'll add my own comments.

    And even with high-assimilation groups, numbers – as Mr. Derbyshire would say – is of paramount importance. Too many immigrants of any stripe are liable to slow assimilation (which is why I support immigration restriction, both legal or otherwise, given the currently rather high percentage of foreign-born population, among whom I am one).
     
    You can't have a steady stream of different races into a country dominated by another race and expect the latter race to survive, especially once the latter race's % of the population drops below 80% to 90%. At that point, you would have to stop all immigration immediately. Even then, the high-assimilation groups would eventually merge with the original race to create a new race. The original race would cease to exist like MP's parrot.

    It would be a peaceful demise, but a death all the same.


    What then, should be the answer? Full on race war? Racial separation? Or work through political and social forces to recapture (or rebuild) some of the institutions and re-enact immigration restriction and assimilation? Which is more likely to succeed? Which is less likely to cause suffering?

     

    See my answer to Charles something II somewhere around here. No. No race war. The best hope for whites is to act like Jews. (Of course, American Jews intermarry a lot, so maybe there is no hope.) Create European American groups and bit by bit carve out a place for ourselves within our coming Brazil of the North society.

    For a people to survive they simply must exclude other peoples. The Japanese and Israelis understand this, but, then, they are adults.

    If you let your mind go where it the logic leads you, you will see that there is a very harsh reality to surviving as a people. I don't think that even around here most of the people are willing to follow that logic to its conclusion. I can assure you that it's not a pleasant experience and one that I resisted for a long time. And I'm still not emotionally comfortable with it.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  126. @attilathehen
    You and your Eurasian family would fit right in India. You don't fit in the West.

    You and your Eurasian family would fit right in India. You don’t fit in the West.

    That’s only true if you insist that a nation-state must be 100% monoracial and unadulterated. Perhaps there is a case for keeping nation-states that way if that was their original condition, but once the race becomes adulterated with racial admixture and the attendant human relationships (for every pairwise racial crossing there’s probably four or five individuals who become inured against monoracialism ), hitting upon a politically viable sorting mechanism for who’s in and who’s out becomes nigh on impossible.

    It’s all very well to dream up formulas about percentages and proportions – the province of pro-white fantasists for decades – but to make any of it stick you need political power. If your formulas are too restrictive, you won’t gain the support of a great enough portion of the population (which goes for both democratic means or violent overthrow), because too much of that population will have either genetic, familial or friendship links with those whom your formula would exclude.

    This wasn’t a problem in countries like 1930′s Germany, say, because racial adulteration was too small too inure enough people against monoracialist exclusivity. But modern America long ago passed the point where such a strategy was viable, and western Europe today is at best at the threshold but will almost surely pass it before all is said and done.

    People respond negatively to racial sorting proposals for two main reasons. The first is their obvious arbitrariness. No matter how or where you draw the racial “line,” there will always be some people who just as well stand inside of it as outside of it (or vice-versa). Say you come up with an airtight genetic formula that anyone with 95.46% such-and-such genes or greater is acceptable. Well, what of someone with only 95.45% such-and-such genes, is he seriously so unacceptable? Really? Most people would call BS on that. And it doesn’t matter how far up or down you move the percentage, the same problem obtains.

    The other reason that people respond negatively is their perception of the costs of exclusion. Hardcore white racialist fanatics are prepared to completely devastate someone’s livelihood if he doesn’t racially fit the bill. They couldn’t care less what becomes of him. Most people, however, are simply not that callous. They wouldn’t dream of shipping someone like “Radical Center” off to India. Hell, they wouldn’t even dream of sending blacks “back” to Africa. (And rightly so, I say.) If this what they perceive pro-white racialism requires, then they want no part of it.

    Any serious, mature pro-white racialism that wants to have a whiff of a chance of defending white racial interests and securing white racial existence – I mean actually defending and actually securing, not just larping – really has no choice but to take all this into account. Any pro-white movement that doesn’t will have no more success than lunatic William Pierce’s laughable “vanguardist” efforts of the 80s and 90s. Like it or not, it is what it is.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    People respond negatively to racial sorting proposals for two main reasons.
     
    I should have mentioned a third reason, which is definitely real, but often only crops up after the issue is given greater consideration. (The other two reasons tend to be more kneejerk reactions rather than carefully considered rejections.) This reason is people's aversion to racial supremacism and feelings of racial inferiority.

    In any discussion of racial sorting proposals - particularly lowbrow discussions - it doesn't take long before certain participants begin to advance reasons for excluding certain groups on the basis of the racial revulsion they have for them. These participants cite reasons like some racial features - these noses or those lips or those eyelids or what have you - are not only "certain signs" of non-white admixture, but are disgusting in their own right - something that no self-respecting white man should wish to inflict on his group. Personal appearances are a matter of great emotional importance to most people, so as soon as offence is taken these participants either bow out or return fire, and the whole discussion quickly degenerates into a series of racial insults.

    I don't think personal insults are the only reason these discussions disturb people, though. If the question of racial identity becomes too closely attached to issues of personal status, then it's clear that some Italian or Greek (to cite two typical punching bags) is going to resist having his status degraded to the point where some trailer park dweller can feel superior to him because his features are whiter. So if political pro-white racialism threatens to erect a social structure where such a thing seems likely or possible, these prospective pro-whites will distance themselves from the movement.

    Furthermore, once social status becomes the central point, no one wants to be low man on the totem pole, so you often find some pro-whites campaigning for the inclusion of people just a little less white than themselves, so it's not all one-way anti-southern-European traffic. By this point, however, the discussion has lost virtually all serious, considerate participants.

    As juvenile as all this is, it's nonetheless still a significant hurdle when it comes to organizing a pro-white movement.
    , @Anonymous
    According to Wiki, self-described "multiracial" Americans make up about 3% of the population. That will increase in future, but it's likely to remain small for a long time. (In part due to mass immigration, which makes it easy for immigrants and their children to find spouses from their own communities.) These people aren't numerous enough to be a serious obstacle to racial separation.
    , @attilathehen
    You're just another cuck. Racial separation is easy. You are making it hard. And these "whites" you speak of are mostly Jews. Nothing I wrote could be construed as Aryan Nationhood, Nazi type stuff.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  127. Twinkie says:
    @Anonymous
    Are you thick? You keep posting the same old crap. Do you believe everything you read in the mainstream media? Do you realize it's not necessarily true? Why do you keep posting this video?

    Why do you keep posting this video?

    Because he – whoever he is – is a troll, and not a very original or entertaining one at that.

    He apparently has a chip on his shoulder and seems to want to draw some sort of personal validation from presenting East Asians as the most awesomest people in this country. I find him tiresome (and *I* am ethnically East Asian!) and gave him earlier the first “troll” marking I ever handed out here. And I haven’t done that even for “Truth” and that other commenter who is always on about decrying white supremacy and people of color rising.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  128. @Twinkie

    Yet, you could tell a bunch of American whites that Africans can become just as “American” as they are, and most of them will believe you. That’s why Steve (and Twinkie) are wrong.
     
    I don't know about Mr. Sailer, but that is certainly a mischaracterization of my view. I think some ethno-national groups are more assimilative than others. And I base this not on my personal opinions and anecdotes, but on concrete studies of proxies that approximate reasonable definitions of assimilation (economic, cultural, and social in the study): https://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_76.pdf

    And even with high-assimilation groups, numbers - as Mr. Derbyshire would say - is of paramount importance. Too many immigrants of any stripe are liable to slow assimilation (which is why I support immigration restriction, both legal or otherwise, given the currently rather high percentage of foreign-born population, among whom I am one).

    The other important factor is what people such as Mark Krikorian (CIS) has long preached over the years (that is, long before "Alt-Right" and Trump became things of note) - that assimilation requires the host society to encourage assimilation (I know, crazy, right?). And we all know our society doesn't anymore. That's something we need to fix badly. From my day one in America, I learned to say the Pledge of Allegiance - in essence I was encouraged to give fealty to God, country, and community here. That just simply isn't done, because our elite stratum has been captured by those who feel greater kinship with elites in other societies rather than the "lowborn" of our own. I think it's likely that more recent graduates of the Ivy League went on to work in investment/banking in London than served in Afghanistan or Iraq.

    To recap, is "civic nationalism" workable today? Probably not. Not with high immigration (and of the wrong type) and not with a "multicultural" elite that doesn't insist on traditional American patriotism and assimilation. What then, should be the answer? Full on race war? Racial separation? Or work through political and social forces to recapture (or rebuild) some of the institutions and re-enact immigration restriction and assimilation? Which is more likely to succeed? Which is less likely to cause suffering?

    Remember that while reform is difficult to achieve, breaking a society is nearly irreversible. I say we owe our children an earnest attempt at the former, before we take the drastic and likely highly destructive step toward the latter... because if that latter were to come about, it won't be the current generation of adults paying the deepest price. It will be the children (along with the old and the infirm).

    I really don’t want to cast aspersions, but even though your post makes a lot of sense, I can’t avoid feeling there is something fundamentally dishonest about it, as though you are willfully skirting the issue of white racial survival. Otherwise I can’t understand why you relentlessly conflate the issue of cultural assimilation with the issue of white racial identity. I mean, it really should be obvious that culturally assimilating non-whites would accelerate white extinction, not prevent it. If non-whites remain culturally distinct, then this lessens the chances they will mix with whites, which in turn buys whites badly needed time to racially organize. So you are really not addressing Citizen of a Silly Country’s main concern at all.

    Now, I suppose Citizen would agree that if white racial survival is deemed unacceptable or is determined to be impossible, that if whites have no other choice than to accept eventual racial extinction, then clearly it would be better for whites to be racially obliterated by people who are culturally familiar and friendly than by people who are culturally alien and hostile. At least if whites are obliterated by friendly and familiar non-whites, then one could fairly say that sure, whites lost their race, but it was such a fun ride all the way down, who can blame them? So cultural assimilation is not without its merits, because the way things stand today, it will not be a fun ride, it will be an endless ordeal. But the honest thing to do is to make this clear in your posts, not to pretend to want the same thing as Citizen when you are, in fact, arguing for something distinctly different.

    Kudos to you for even participating in this discussion, though. I have been doing “race talk” for so long I have forgotten how jarring, how emotionally distressing, it can be when it’s first encountered, especially when it’s prepared to go all the way down the rabbit hole, rather than prematurely terminating itself the minute the going gets tough.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    I really don’t want to cast aspersions, but even though your post makes a lot of sense, I can’t avoid feeling there is something fundamentally dishonest about it
     
    I make sense, but I must be lying somehow? Well, friend, I can't do anything about your feelings. That's on you. I can only articulate what I think based on what I studied and my life experience. If that makes sense to you, well and good. If it doesn't, that's fine too, so long as you don't mean me or my family and friends any harm (I'm assuming, of course, that you don't mean my community or country harm). I don't expect everyone to share my particular set of beliefs on "what is good in life" to borrow a line from "Conan the Barbarian." But I do expect (reasonable) people to take me at my word. If there is constant questioning of motive and sincerity, then there is no discussion.

    I mean, it really should be obvious that culturally assimilating non-whites would accelerate white extinction, not prevent it.
     
    "White extinction"? That's very Wagenerian - very Götterdämmerung-like.

    Well, I don't share that fanciful doomsday notion.

    In the first place, whites - like, say, East Asians - are a hybrid race that, in their particular case, was created out of at least four pulses of migrations into Europe. And depending on where in Europe the proportions of those mixes differ significantly (e.g. Sardinia with its high percentage of Anatolian farmer genes vs. Finland with its high Eurasian hunter-gather ancestry plus 5-15% Siberian/Asian genes). As such, the white race can tolerate some degree of further hybridization without changing its characteristics (phenotypical or otherwise).

    Second, people of European origins are not about to go extinct. Yes, there are strong pressures for demographic contraction (as there are in MOST developed countries, e.g. Japan, South Korea, and even China), but they are not guaranteed and are reversible (demographic projections beyond 25 years or so are basically worthless, because there are many grand assumptions built into them, and most of these contingencies typically don't bear out in real life).

    Finally, my concern is largely about my nation-state - the United States of America and her people as constituted today (the current "shareholders" of the country, to borrow Mr. Sailer's metaphor). *I* personally don't have obsessive racial consciousness and don't think of advancement/dominance of this particular race or that (even my own race). I am much more concerned about preserving my country - which is an actual tangible, physical entity - and its traditional institutions and culture, in other words its civilization (and, yes, this means that I think the country ought to be majority Northwestern European stock). A country that is 100% Russian might be dandy for people who are obsessed about a "white ethno-state," but to me that would be a very alien place. I'd rather live in a country that is only, say, 75% white that, nonetheless, has the Anglo-American civic traditions, law, and governance I love and cherish.

    So, yes, I oppose the degradation of the traditional Christian Anglo-American culture in this country. I abhor the constant demonization of the whites - the country's majority population - in the media. I am aghast at many ugly things that are happening today. But that doesn't mean I think that the solution is to carve the country into pieces or elevate - de jure - one segment of the population over another. I'd rather we found a solution that creates a more genuinely equitable society for most of the people of the country.

    White nationalists are always disparaging this idea of a "propositional nation" - how a country founded upon an idea cannot be. Well, "white nationalism" is an idea, a proposition. A country deliberately constructed along such an idea would be a creation based on an ideal rather than something that has developed organically through history. As you yourself pointed out in other comments, we already have a multiracial country. That is a real, concrete reality. And for those who operate in the realm of that firm reality, the goal is - or ought to be in any case - make the best country out of what IS, rather what could be based on fanciful internet notions of white nationalism (I think you called it "larping") that has practically no chance of being implemented (or would create an incredible amount of human suffering if it were to come about as a great deal of force would be necessary).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  129. anonguy says:
    @Glaivester
    The one about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

    The one about Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.

    I’m glad he took it down. I don’t know if he drinks or not, but it had all the trappings of an ill-advised posting under the influence.

    Read More
    • LOL: Yan Shen
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  130. @silviosilver

    You and your Eurasian family would fit right in India. You don’t fit in the West.
     
    That's only true if you insist that a nation-state must be 100% monoracial and unadulterated. Perhaps there is a case for keeping nation-states that way if that was their original condition, but once the race becomes adulterated with racial admixture and the attendant human relationships (for every pairwise racial crossing there's probably four or five individuals who become inured against monoracialism ), hitting upon a politically viable sorting mechanism for who's in and who's out becomes nigh on impossible.

    It's all very well to dream up formulas about percentages and proportions - the province of pro-white fantasists for decades - but to make any of it stick you need political power. If your formulas are too restrictive, you won't gain the support of a great enough portion of the population (which goes for both democratic means or violent overthrow), because too much of that population will have either genetic, familial or friendship links with those whom your formula would exclude.

    This wasn't a problem in countries like 1930's Germany, say, because racial adulteration was too small too inure enough people against monoracialist exclusivity. But modern America long ago passed the point where such a strategy was viable, and western Europe today is at best at the threshold but will almost surely pass it before all is said and done.

    People respond negatively to racial sorting proposals for two main reasons. The first is their obvious arbitrariness. No matter how or where you draw the racial "line," there will always be some people who just as well stand inside of it as outside of it (or vice-versa). Say you come up with an airtight genetic formula that anyone with 95.46% such-and-such genes or greater is acceptable. Well, what of someone with only 95.45% such-and-such genes, is he seriously so unacceptable? Really? Most people would call BS on that. And it doesn't matter how far up or down you move the percentage, the same problem obtains.

    The other reason that people respond negatively is their perception of the costs of exclusion. Hardcore white racialist fanatics are prepared to completely devastate someone's livelihood if he doesn't racially fit the bill. They couldn't care less what becomes of him. Most people, however, are simply not that callous. They wouldn't dream of shipping someone like "Radical Center" off to India. Hell, they wouldn't even dream of sending blacks "back" to Africa. (And rightly so, I say.) If this what they perceive pro-white racialism requires, then they want no part of it.

    Any serious, mature pro-white racialism that wants to have a whiff of a chance of defending white racial interests and securing white racial existence - I mean actually defending and actually securing, not just larping - really has no choice but to take all this into account. Any pro-white movement that doesn't will have no more success than lunatic William Pierce's laughable "vanguardist" efforts of the 80s and 90s. Like it or not, it is what it is.

    People respond negatively to racial sorting proposals for two main reasons.

    I should have mentioned a third reason, which is definitely real, but often only crops up after the issue is given greater consideration. (The other two reasons tend to be more kneejerk reactions rather than carefully considered rejections.) This reason is people’s aversion to racial supremacism and feelings of racial inferiority.

    In any discussion of racial sorting proposals – particularly lowbrow discussions – it doesn’t take long before certain participants begin to advance reasons for excluding certain groups on the basis of the racial revulsion they have for them. These participants cite reasons like some racial features – these noses or those lips or those eyelids or what have you – are not only “certain signs” of non-white admixture, but are disgusting in their own right – something that no self-respecting white man should wish to inflict on his group. Personal appearances are a matter of great emotional importance to most people, so as soon as offence is taken these participants either bow out or return fire, and the whole discussion quickly degenerates into a series of racial insults.

    I don’t think personal insults are the only reason these discussions disturb people, though. If the question of racial identity becomes too closely attached to issues of personal status, then it’s clear that some Italian or Greek (to cite two typical punching bags) is going to resist having his status degraded to the point where some trailer park dweller can feel superior to him because his features are whiter. So if political pro-white racialism threatens to erect a social structure where such a thing seems likely or possible, these prospective pro-whites will distance themselves from the movement.

    Furthermore, once social status becomes the central point, no one wants to be low man on the totem pole, so you often find some pro-whites campaigning for the inclusion of people just a little less white than themselves, so it’s not all one-way anti-southern-European traffic. By this point, however, the discussion has lost virtually all serious, considerate participants.

    As juvenile as all this is, it’s nonetheless still a significant hurdle when it comes to organizing a pro-white movement.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    "...some Italian or Greek (to cite two typical punching bags) is going to resist having his status degraded to the point where some trailer park dweller... Italians/Greeks are whites." No will one will degrade their status. You're spewing nonsense. Nick Rahall a former politician from West Virginia was 1/2 Lebanese. No one questioned his racial acceptance. Ted Kennedy's widow Victoria Reggie is Lebanese and from Louisiana. No one questioned her ethnicity. On the other hand, Bobby Jindal is definitely not kosher. Neither was Obama. Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, et al.) are anti white. If they are 1/2 white, most of the time they will side with their Asian side. Derbyshire's Chinese offspring are an example. Obama dated a 1/2 Japanese, 1/2 Dutch woman who wound up marrying a Korean. Families naturally separate. Hispanics can be of any race, and they separate themselves. Todd Palin's great grandmother was an Eskimo, but he is not an Eskimo. Jews would be separated. They are not white and are anti-white. Separation is quite easy.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  131. @Twinkie
    You make fair points.

    I would add one more consideration to what I wrote earlier in regards to matters of good manners and taste. Mr. Sailer, despite being an avowed "citizenist," is often attacked by the mainstream media as a racist. There is no reason to provide the latter with more ammunition (especially "there is fire where there is smoke" type of ammunition, to which that post came close). Writing something like that and then erasing it (rather than publicly retracting it) comes off as hiding something. It's not like his enemies don't read him, after all. Someone can easily reproduce it online and say "See, we all knew he was a racist all along. He wrote that blacks should be laborers and biracial women should be prostitutes [for the gratification of white men]. Then he tried to hide it!"

    I don't want to belabor the point. I would simply say, if it was bad enough to (publish and then) erase it quickly, it's bad enough to apologize for it.

    Steve got a lot of valid pushback
     
    Did he? I read only a handful of comments critiquing it among the 160+, most of which seemed to egg it on gleefully, to the discredit of the audience here. Of course, all that reader "contribution" as such is gone too.

    I would simply say, if it was bad enough to (publish and then) erase it quickly, it’s bad enough to apologize for it.

    Nah. If it was that lame, he’s right to nix it and say no more. Come to think of it, we aren’t helping. ;)

    It’ll soon be Christmas. Surely you’ll allow a mulligan for our gracious host.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  132. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @silviosilver

    You and your Eurasian family would fit right in India. You don’t fit in the West.
     
    That's only true if you insist that a nation-state must be 100% monoracial and unadulterated. Perhaps there is a case for keeping nation-states that way if that was their original condition, but once the race becomes adulterated with racial admixture and the attendant human relationships (for every pairwise racial crossing there's probably four or five individuals who become inured against monoracialism ), hitting upon a politically viable sorting mechanism for who's in and who's out becomes nigh on impossible.

    It's all very well to dream up formulas about percentages and proportions - the province of pro-white fantasists for decades - but to make any of it stick you need political power. If your formulas are too restrictive, you won't gain the support of a great enough portion of the population (which goes for both democratic means or violent overthrow), because too much of that population will have either genetic, familial or friendship links with those whom your formula would exclude.

    This wasn't a problem in countries like 1930's Germany, say, because racial adulteration was too small too inure enough people against monoracialist exclusivity. But modern America long ago passed the point where such a strategy was viable, and western Europe today is at best at the threshold but will almost surely pass it before all is said and done.

    People respond negatively to racial sorting proposals for two main reasons. The first is their obvious arbitrariness. No matter how or where you draw the racial "line," there will always be some people who just as well stand inside of it as outside of it (or vice-versa). Say you come up with an airtight genetic formula that anyone with 95.46% such-and-such genes or greater is acceptable. Well, what of someone with only 95.45% such-and-such genes, is he seriously so unacceptable? Really? Most people would call BS on that. And it doesn't matter how far up or down you move the percentage, the same problem obtains.

    The other reason that people respond negatively is their perception of the costs of exclusion. Hardcore white racialist fanatics are prepared to completely devastate someone's livelihood if he doesn't racially fit the bill. They couldn't care less what becomes of him. Most people, however, are simply not that callous. They wouldn't dream of shipping someone like "Radical Center" off to India. Hell, they wouldn't even dream of sending blacks "back" to Africa. (And rightly so, I say.) If this what they perceive pro-white racialism requires, then they want no part of it.

    Any serious, mature pro-white racialism that wants to have a whiff of a chance of defending white racial interests and securing white racial existence - I mean actually defending and actually securing, not just larping - really has no choice but to take all this into account. Any pro-white movement that doesn't will have no more success than lunatic William Pierce's laughable "vanguardist" efforts of the 80s and 90s. Like it or not, it is what it is.

    According to Wiki, self-described “multiracial” Americans make up about 3% of the population. That will increase in future, but it’s likely to remain small for a long time. (In part due to mass immigration, which makes it easy for immigrants and their children to find spouses from their own communities.) These people aren’t numerous enough to be a serious obstacle to racial separation.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    These people aren’t numerous enough to be a serious obstacle to racial separation.
     
    Not by themselves, no, but you're ignoring the multiplier effect of racial crossings. At a minimum, a mixed-race child will inure the white parent against racial separation. So if the white parent has the average number of mixed children as white parents have white children (about 1.8, call it 2), then that's already another 1.5%. Then what about the mixed child's grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins - isn't it likely that at least a few of them will be so enamored with the child that they'd never consider racial separation? I'd say that's worth a few percentage points more. Then there is the mixed-race child's friends, most of whom will struggle to look past the relationship they have with the friend in order to even begin to comprehend the need for separation. And all of these people have friends whom they will try very hard to dissuade from considering separation. Lastly, as you say, 3% isn't going to stay 3% for long.

    In the context of a likely scenario in which some 10-20% of whites (possibly more, doubtfully fewer) would under no circumstances ever consider racial separation, regardless of whom they're related to, these small percentages make a big difference to the odds of racialist success. Note, I do not say they doom the prospects of white racial survival, but I think they so significantly alter the sociopolitical dynamics within which racialism must operate that attempting to recapture 100% of white territory for a 100% white population is a fool's errand (strategically speaking, to say nothing of its morality).

    , @silviosilver
    Also, even if mixed or racially ambiguous people are a small proportion of the population, they exacerbate the sorting problems I mentioned. In a wholly white population, there is no need to define what white means in order to safeguard white existence. In a mixed population, however, this becomes a necessity. Yet so fraught with difficulty has this definition been that I could be forgiven for quipping that few people doubted the existence of the white race until racialists tried to prove it. I don't mean to be flippant. This a most serious issue. Who is ever going to throw the full weight of his support behind a political movement which, on closer examination, may or may not include him? The uncertainties will overwhelm all but the most idealistic.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  133. Patriot says:
    @Nick Diaz
    Now this is rich. Trying to ascribe the enormous scientific and economic progress over the last two centuries to nation-states, when in reality such progress is due to the values of the Enlightnment. There were nation-states before the XVIIIth century, like the Parthian Empire and Han China, and yet there was very little scientific and cultural progress during that time. The Byzantine Empire was also a classic nation-state, and yet for some 400 years it stagnated and had nothing to show for.

    In fact, strong nation-states has historically been at odds with entrepeuners, scientists and artists, and tried to blot progress because it didn't fit their nationalist ideology. The classic example is Nazi Germany, where art, science and industry were controlled by the state, and any type of contribution had to be analysed on the grounds of whether it was "Aryan", "Germanic" or not. The U.S.S.R was a strong nation-state, with all the characteristics of a strong nation-state, from national borders to a national army, and yet it ended capitalist freedom. Trying to say that nationalism is responsible for the success of capitalism and science is asinine and easily refuted by the historical evidence.

    No, the progress of the last two centuries were due to the Enlightnment values of personal freedom, rationalism and a limited government. In fact, the countries that progressed the most were those that gave individuals the highest degree of freedom and were the least nationalistic, like England and France. The strong nation-states with lesser personal freedom, like Prussia and Tsarist Russia, took much longer to develop.

    Of course, Sailer completely glosses over the *tragedy* that nationalism causes. Roughly 80% of all wars are caused by nationalism, with the other 20% being caused by religion. In the XXth century alone, nationalism killed some 100 million human beings. Just WWII alone had an estimated death toll of some 55 million people. I guess Sailer finds the death of tens of millions of young men a small price to pay in exchange for his contrived and poorly substantiated argument that nationalism fosters economic and scientific progress. I know that, to conservatives, the lives of young men are disposable cannon fodder to be sacrificed in the altar of national greatness - and Sailer has expressed sympathy for the military draft -, but I think otherwise. As Einstein once said:

    "Nationalism is the cancer of Mankind."



    And, of course, Sailer and his minions don't really understand what globalisation is. It is not some "conspiracy" on the part of plutocrats to destroy the nation-state; rather, globalisation is a process that has been going on since the late Pleistocene era some 30,000 years go, when the first tribes of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers decided to trade with other tribes for mutual benefit. Tribes eventually coalesced into fixed communities with the development of agriculture at the beggining of the Neolithic era, to the formation of the first city-state by the end of the Copper age some 7,000 years ago , to eventually nation-states and empires.

    Globalisation is the progression of that. Simple as that. It is fostered by the development of technology, and has nothing to do with politics. As communications and transporations technology develops, business, that before could only be done locally or nationally, can now be done globally. It is simply the result of more advanced science. Just like the development of agriculture allowed for the formation of the first settled communities, and city-states, the development of roads allowed for distant communities to coalesce into nations with large territories, now the massive growth of communications technology has shrunk the World even more. Globalisation is a technological process that has been going on since the Pleistocene, but Sailer and his minions cannot connect the dots. In fact, Sailer and his minions have demonstrated an amazing inability to connect the dots. It's a good thing that I am here to think for them. Someone has to do it.

    What we are actually going through with globalisation at this stage is that we are progressing to becoming a Type I civilization in the Kardashev Scale. The internet, for instance, is a global communication platform. A Type I civilization is a global unified civilization that harnesses all the energy and productive capacity of a planet. With the development of thermonuclear weapons in the 1950's, the obsolescence of nation-states became a matter of time. Thermonuclear weapons make national borders redundant, and represent a risk of global catastrophe. Eventually, a one World government will be needed to avoid mass extinction, as terrorists will soon be able to make these weapons. With the development of communications technology, the nation-state became obsolete economically as well.

    Deal with it: you guys are living fossils, as well as your ideas. The World you want is not sustainable in the long-run. It's either globalisation or mass extinction or stagnation. In fact, we might not make it. Maybe the development of a global society will lose out to nationalism, and eventually these nation-states, all armed with nukes and wanting to uphold their national interests, will simply erradicate the human species.

    I truly hope people like you lose out in the end. For the good of Mankind.

    Diaz, please learn to think. You say that 80% of wars were caused by nationalism, but in reality, 100% of wars have been caused by diversity (= differences); i.e., diversity in religion, race ethnicity, language, wealth, resources, politics, etc. Nationality is often a sum of many such differences.

    This is why diversity within a single society is so friggin dangerous. Diversity is almost never a strength, but a costly weakness. The happiest and most peaceful societies are often homogeneous, and have few differences (diverse aspects) to fight over.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    I find it hilarious that an unintelligent person such as yourself would tell me to learn how to think. Yes, wars are caused by diversity....of nations. The people that get into racial strife tend to be low clas and uneducated. Peo0ple of different races at Harvard are polite and civilized to each other. But let's assume that you are right: that epople of different races just can't get along. In that case, I would still prefer the end of natin-states because at least then we won't need to deal with national militaries. I would rather have people fighting each other with sticks, stones and kitchen knives rather than opposing national militaries. After all, organized armies with military-grade weaponry kill a lot more people than the kind of racial clashes you see between skinheads and Black Panthers. So even if you were right, which you aren't, my point about how terrible the nation-state is would still stand.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  134. @silviosilver
    There is hierarchy in the sense that neither individuals nor groups are in actual fact equal. Recognizing this is just recognizing reality for what it is. I would say this still allows for an ethic of treating people as equally as possible, but not more so.

    Then there is hierarchy in the sense of a value system, which focuses on, emphasizes and, intentionally or otherwise, exaggerates the degree to which individuals and groups are unequal, and which has no interest in or desire to treat anyone or anything equally. The social effect is that people become obsessed with being superior to other individuals and groups; obsessed with identifying and promoting the very best that their culture has produced and presenting it as superior to anybody else's cultural products. You wouldn't be far wrong if you called this the essence of fascism. If you read their blogs, this certainly seems to be what animates the neo-nazi types - a fanatical obsession with presenting themselves as the greatest who ever lived and the greatest there will ever be. It's more or less straight out race-worship.

    I think lefties are wrong to fear that the former will necessarily lead to conflict (at least wrong to fear it to the paralyzing extent that they do), but quite right to fear that the latter will.

    There is hierarchy in the sense that neither individuals nor groups are in actual fact equal. Recognizing this is just recognizing reality for what it is. I would say this still allows for an ethic of treating people as equally as possible, but not more so.

    I would like to point out that this still leaves a lot of room for equal treatment, both individual and group.

    I have done my share of reading up on Nietzschean morality and even though his arguments often make sense, I don’t find them emotionally compelling. I think “slave” morality makes for a much nicer world than “master” morality. We can probably all think of someone who is much more accomplished than ourselves – would you prefer he treated you haughtily as befits someone of his exalted station, or kindly and compassionately? To ask is to answer, really. And of course you would have been far better off as a proletarian in the “slavish” EU than in the “masterly” Roman empire, that’s just obvious – and that would be true even if the latter were no more economically advanced than Rome. So the fact that people/s are not remotely equal in any fact-based sense hardly matters to me in terms of the treatment I think they should be afforded.

    The obvious changes would be things like ceasing the bellyaching over “achievement gaps.” These would just be accepted as unremarkable facts of reality. What would instead concern us is whether people are making sufficient absolute progress, not whether gaps are being relatively closed or not. Isn’t it better if both your income and Warren Buffet’s increase at 10% per annum than if yours increases by 2% and his by 1%? Well, Gore Vidal said “It’s not enough to succeed; others must fail,” so if this is true, then only the latter case satisfies this condition, but I think this reasoning only makes sense with respect to a personal rival. If I don’t know Warren Buffet, and I don’t move in the same social circles, I wouldn’t be bummed if he was moving away from me provided I was making satisfactory absolute progress. (I’ve only mentioned income here, but you could extend the same reasoning to numerous other spheres.)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner

    And of course you would have been far better off as a proletarian in the “slavish” EU than in the “masterly” Roman empire, that’s just obvious – and that would be true even if the latter were no more economically advanced than Rome.
     
    Rome lasted about 2100 years (700 BC- 1453 AD). The EU is about 20 years old. You can make a very nice society if you are willing to burn through social capital, but at the end of the day if you don't take the measures necessary to keep society running, it will die.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  135. @Anonymous
    According to Wiki, self-described "multiracial" Americans make up about 3% of the population. That will increase in future, but it's likely to remain small for a long time. (In part due to mass immigration, which makes it easy for immigrants and their children to find spouses from their own communities.) These people aren't numerous enough to be a serious obstacle to racial separation.

    These people aren’t numerous enough to be a serious obstacle to racial separation.

    Not by themselves, no, but you’re ignoring the multiplier effect of racial crossings. At a minimum, a mixed-race child will inure the white parent against racial separation. So if the white parent has the average number of mixed children as white parents have white children (about 1.8, call it 2), then that’s already another 1.5%. Then what about the mixed child’s grandparents, aunts, uncles, cousins – isn’t it likely that at least a few of them will be so enamored with the child that they’d never consider racial separation? I’d say that’s worth a few percentage points more. Then there is the mixed-race child’s friends, most of whom will struggle to look past the relationship they have with the friend in order to even begin to comprehend the need for separation. And all of these people have friends whom they will try very hard to dissuade from considering separation. Lastly, as you say, 3% isn’t going to stay 3% for long.

    In the context of a likely scenario in which some 10-20% of whites (possibly more, doubtfully fewer) would under no circumstances ever consider racial separation, regardless of whom they’re related to, these small percentages make a big difference to the odds of racialist success. Note, I do not say they doom the prospects of white racial survival, but I think they so significantly alter the sociopolitical dynamics within which racialism must operate that attempting to recapture 100% of white territory for a 100% white population is a fool’s errand (strategically speaking, to say nothing of its morality).

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  136. @PiltdownMan

    Protip: nation-states don’t print their money with upwards of 5 scripts.
     
    India prints its money with 14 scripts (to my eye) but anyone who is well acquainted with the country would opine that it is very nation-statey, notwithstanding some low-level insurgencies in some poorer, more tribal parts of the country.

    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_wYKI9f67kM0/TUG61JJeaJI/AAAAAAAAAKo/2dwIeT1n3qE/s1600/IndiaP44-100Rupees-%25281957-62%2529_b.jpg

    If India is a country then so is the EU. If the EU isn’t a country then India isn’t one either.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    In European history, there is no Raj. The closest thing to that might be Rome. There have been several in India's history. India has a distinctive religion and set of social relations not replicated elsewhere. Europe hasn't had that in 500 years. India has also managed to hold together under a single government for 70 years. Not a nation, but an association with the potential to develop into a nation.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  137. @Anonymous
    According to Wiki, self-described "multiracial" Americans make up about 3% of the population. That will increase in future, but it's likely to remain small for a long time. (In part due to mass immigration, which makes it easy for immigrants and their children to find spouses from their own communities.) These people aren't numerous enough to be a serious obstacle to racial separation.

    Also, even if mixed or racially ambiguous people are a small proportion of the population, they exacerbate the sorting problems I mentioned. In a wholly white population, there is no need to define what white means in order to safeguard white existence. In a mixed population, however, this becomes a necessity. Yet so fraught with difficulty has this definition been that I could be forgiven for quipping that few people doubted the existence of the white race until racialists tried to prove it. I don’t mean to be flippant. This a most serious issue. Who is ever going to throw the full weight of his support behind a political movement which, on closer examination, may or may not include him? The uncertainties will overwhelm all but the most idealistic.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Yet so fraught with difficulty has this definition been that I could be forgiven for quipping that few people doubted the existence of the white race until racialists tried to prove it. I don’t mean to be flippant. This a most serious issue. Who is ever going to throw the full weight of his support behind a political movement which, on closer examination, may or may not include him? The uncertainties will overwhelm all but the most idealistic.
     
    I have South African (Boer) friends who grew up during the Apartheid. They told me that, given that many South African whites have a small fraction of black and Cape Malay ancestry, a lot of racial categorization during the Apartheid was rather arbitrary (sometimes randomly dividing even siblings!). As you point out rightly, there was a constant problem of defining where the racial boundary was. Anyway you cut it, there was always going to be a great deal of aggrieved people who could reasonably make the case that they were unjustly left out (e.g. "I'm 66% - why am *I* out while that guy who is 67% is in?" or worse, "I am 66% - why am *I* out while that guy who is 65% but has blond hair and fairer skin is in?"). Race makes a great deal of sense as a demographic construct, but legally it is a nightmare to define, because it is, while a real phenomenon, one that does not have discrete boundaries.

    My friends opposed and still oppose the ANC rule in South Africa, but they also think that Apartheid was neither sustainable nor just.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  138. Twinkie says:
    @silviosilver
    I really don't want to cast aspersions, but even though your post makes a lot of sense, I can't avoid feeling there is something fundamentally dishonest about it, as though you are willfully skirting the issue of white racial survival. Otherwise I can't understand why you relentlessly conflate the issue of cultural assimilation with the issue of white racial identity. I mean, it really should be obvious that culturally assimilating non-whites would accelerate white extinction, not prevent it. If non-whites remain culturally distinct, then this lessens the chances they will mix with whites, which in turn buys whites badly needed time to racially organize. So you are really not addressing Citizen of a Silly Country's main concern at all.

    Now, I suppose Citizen would agree that if white racial survival is deemed unacceptable or is determined to be impossible, that if whites have no other choice than to accept eventual racial extinction, then clearly it would be better for whites to be racially obliterated by people who are culturally familiar and friendly than by people who are culturally alien and hostile. At least if whites are obliterated by friendly and familiar non-whites, then one could fairly say that sure, whites lost their race, but it was such a fun ride all the way down, who can blame them? So cultural assimilation is not without its merits, because the way things stand today, it will not be a fun ride, it will be an endless ordeal. But the honest thing to do is to make this clear in your posts, not to pretend to want the same thing as Citizen when you are, in fact, arguing for something distinctly different.

    Kudos to you for even participating in this discussion, though. I have been doing "race talk" for so long I have forgotten how jarring, how emotionally distressing, it can be when it's first encountered, especially when it's prepared to go all the way down the rabbit hole, rather than prematurely terminating itself the minute the going gets tough.

    I really don’t want to cast aspersions, but even though your post makes a lot of sense, I can’t avoid feeling there is something fundamentally dishonest about it

    I make sense, but I must be lying somehow? Well, friend, I can’t do anything about your feelings. That’s on you. I can only articulate what I think based on what I studied and my life experience. If that makes sense to you, well and good. If it doesn’t, that’s fine too, so long as you don’t mean me or my family and friends any harm (I’m assuming, of course, that you don’t mean my community or country harm). I don’t expect everyone to share my particular set of beliefs on “what is good in life” to borrow a line from “Conan the Barbarian.” But I do expect (reasonable) people to take me at my word. If there is constant questioning of motive and sincerity, then there is no discussion.

    I mean, it really should be obvious that culturally assimilating non-whites would accelerate white extinction, not prevent it.

    “White extinction”? That’s very Wagenerian – very Götterdämmerung-like.

    Well, I don’t share that fanciful doomsday notion.

    In the first place, whites – like, say, East Asians – are a hybrid race that, in their particular case, was created out of at least four pulses of migrations into Europe. And depending on where in Europe the proportions of those mixes differ significantly (e.g. Sardinia with its high percentage of Anatolian farmer genes vs. Finland with its high Eurasian hunter-gather ancestry plus 5-15% Siberian/Asian genes). As such, the white race can tolerate some degree of further hybridization without changing its characteristics (phenotypical or otherwise).

    Second, people of European origins are not about to go extinct. Yes, there are strong pressures for demographic contraction (as there are in MOST developed countries, e.g. Japan, South Korea, and even China), but they are not guaranteed and are reversible (demographic projections beyond 25 years or so are basically worthless, because there are many grand assumptions built into them, and most of these contingencies typically don’t bear out in real life).

    Finally, my concern is largely about my nation-state – the United States of America and her people as constituted today (the current “shareholders” of the country, to borrow Mr. Sailer’s metaphor). *I* personally don’t have obsessive racial consciousness and don’t think of advancement/dominance of this particular race or that (even my own race). I am much more concerned about preserving my country – which is an actual tangible, physical entity – and its traditional institutions and culture, in other words its civilization (and, yes, this means that I think the country ought to be majority Northwestern European stock). A country that is 100% Russian might be dandy for people who are obsessed about a “white ethno-state,” but to me that would be a very alien place. I’d rather live in a country that is only, say, 75% white that, nonetheless, has the Anglo-American civic traditions, law, and governance I love and cherish.

    So, yes, I oppose the degradation of the traditional Christian Anglo-American culture in this country. I abhor the constant demonization of the whites – the country’s majority population – in the media. I am aghast at many ugly things that are happening today. But that doesn’t mean I think that the solution is to carve the country into pieces or elevate – de jure – one segment of the population over another. I’d rather we found a solution that creates a more genuinely equitable society for most of the people of the country.

    White nationalists are always disparaging this idea of a “propositional nation” – how a country founded upon an idea cannot be. Well, “white nationalism” is an idea, a proposition. A country deliberately constructed along such an idea would be a creation based on an ideal rather than something that has developed organically through history. As you yourself pointed out in other comments, we already have a multiracial country. That is a real, concrete reality. And for those who operate in the realm of that firm reality, the goal is – or ought to be in any case – make the best country out of what IS, rather what could be based on fanciful internet notions of white nationalism (I think you called it “larping”) that has practically no chance of being implemented (or would create an incredible amount of human suffering if it were to come about as a great deal of force would be necessary).

    Read More
    • Agree: Ian M.
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    My suspicion was that you were willfully evading addressing Citizen of a Silly Country's racial concerns (by talking about cultural concerns). If this was not done willfully, then I retract the accusation. But the point does indeed remain that you were not addressing his concerns.

    Second, people of European origins are not about to go extinct.
     
    What causes racial extinction? The failure of a race to reproduce itself. This can happen because members of the race fail to have sufficient children or because they have too many children with members of other races. If either of these occurs for long enough, racial extinction must necessarily ensue. Whether your statement above can be deemed reasonable or not depends on what time frame your use of "about" implies. If you mean in the next ten years, no clearly not. Not even in the next hundred. But if you extrapolate out from present trends, it's hardly fanciful to imagine that in two or three hundred years whites will be effectively extinct - ie reduced to 1% or less of the population in their ancestral territories, with ongoing racial intermixture ensuring that even this pitiful remainder will not be permanently maintained. If you want to argue that at some future point some intervention will become possible that would allow whites to avoid complete racial extinction, my question must be why wait until then? And if, as you hint, it's already "too late" to do anything to secure white racial existence, then it's difficult to see how or why this should suddenly become easier in the future.

    Whites today are in a situation in which too few whites are having children, and of those who are having children, too few are having them with other whites. Unless this is reversed, whites will indeed go extinct. It will not happen within our lifetimes, but people who care about their racial existence understandably ask why it must be permitted to occur ever? Why must it be permitted to occur if preventing it would not necessarily compromise or jeopardize any other group's vital racial or cultural interests?

    What, really, is so offensive about the white desire to racially live on? Is it that you and your offspring's freedom or right to interact with white people might be somewhat (perhaps not completely) curtailed? This would not be an uncommon reaction. In fact, outrage by non-whites that their lives might be inconvenienced by whites deciding to live on rather than die off, replete with thunderous denunciations of the alleged "racism" behind this motivation, is probably the most common reaction. This is so even when the whites in question strain to reassure the non-whites in question that they have no intention of "sending them home" or inconveniencing them beyond the minimum degree necessary to secure their own racial existence - generally meaning that some parts of America or the world (but not all parts) must necessarily becomes off-limits to non-whites, just as some parts would become off-limits to whites and other non-whites - that anything and everything that can be done and that is consistent with the accomplishment of this goal and with the minimization of disruption to non-white well-being, including the provision of compensation where that disruption exceeds some level, should be done. Such assurances do strangely little to quench the outrage.

    I am much more concerned about preserving my country – which is an actual tangible, physical entity – and its traditional institutions and culture, in other words its civilization
     
    Those things are virtually the anti-thesis of "tangible" and "physical." If lost, they can be resurrected in a way that a race - which is actually physical and tangible - cannot be.

    Finally, my concern is largely about my nation-state – the United States of America and her people as constituted today (the current “shareholders” of the country, to borrow Mr. Sailer’s metaphor).
     
    Then you are shit out of luck. Because the policies and trends already in place guarantee that the United States of America as constituted today will not be so constituted tomorrow, and will be even less and less so with each passing year.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  139. Twinkie says:
    @silviosilver
    Also, even if mixed or racially ambiguous people are a small proportion of the population, they exacerbate the sorting problems I mentioned. In a wholly white population, there is no need to define what white means in order to safeguard white existence. In a mixed population, however, this becomes a necessity. Yet so fraught with difficulty has this definition been that I could be forgiven for quipping that few people doubted the existence of the white race until racialists tried to prove it. I don't mean to be flippant. This a most serious issue. Who is ever going to throw the full weight of his support behind a political movement which, on closer examination, may or may not include him? The uncertainties will overwhelm all but the most idealistic.

    Yet so fraught with difficulty has this definition been that I could be forgiven for quipping that few people doubted the existence of the white race until racialists tried to prove it. I don’t mean to be flippant. This a most serious issue. Who is ever going to throw the full weight of his support behind a political movement which, on closer examination, may or may not include him? The uncertainties will overwhelm all but the most idealistic.

    I have South African (Boer) friends who grew up during the Apartheid. They told me that, given that many South African whites have a small fraction of black and Cape Malay ancestry, a lot of racial categorization during the Apartheid was rather arbitrary (sometimes randomly dividing even siblings!). As you point out rightly, there was a constant problem of defining where the racial boundary was. Anyway you cut it, there was always going to be a great deal of aggrieved people who could reasonably make the case that they were unjustly left out (e.g. “I’m 66% – why am *I* out while that guy who is 67% is in?” or worse, “I am 66% – why am *I* out while that guy who is 65% but has blond hair and fairer skin is in?”). Race makes a great deal of sense as a demographic construct, but legally it is a nightmare to define, because it is, while a real phenomenon, one that does not have discrete boundaries.

    My friends opposed and still oppose the ANC rule in South Africa, but they also think that Apartheid was neither sustainable nor just.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    My friends opposed and still oppose the ANC rule in South Africa, but they also think that Apartheid was neither sustainable nor just.
     
    Then your friends are fools, for it was neither unsustainable nor unjust.

    Unless whites in S. Africa are able to to secure recognition that some parts of S. Africa (however small or insignificant) are theirs and theirs alone to inhabit, in the fullness of time, complete negrification is bound to occur.

    In a hundred years our planet's black population will have grown to some four billion. It cannot be assumed that Africa will contain them all. The desire to avoid negrification is probably the most compelling argument I can make for racial separatism. It is something that all non-black groups should be able to understand the benefit of, with some smaller portion of the members of each such group also understanding the long-term necessity of it, if negrification is to be permanently avoided.

    I urge and beg you to ponder this.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  140. @Twinkie

    I really don’t want to cast aspersions, but even though your post makes a lot of sense, I can’t avoid feeling there is something fundamentally dishonest about it
     
    I make sense, but I must be lying somehow? Well, friend, I can't do anything about your feelings. That's on you. I can only articulate what I think based on what I studied and my life experience. If that makes sense to you, well and good. If it doesn't, that's fine too, so long as you don't mean me or my family and friends any harm (I'm assuming, of course, that you don't mean my community or country harm). I don't expect everyone to share my particular set of beliefs on "what is good in life" to borrow a line from "Conan the Barbarian." But I do expect (reasonable) people to take me at my word. If there is constant questioning of motive and sincerity, then there is no discussion.

    I mean, it really should be obvious that culturally assimilating non-whites would accelerate white extinction, not prevent it.
     
    "White extinction"? That's very Wagenerian - very Götterdämmerung-like.

    Well, I don't share that fanciful doomsday notion.

    In the first place, whites - like, say, East Asians - are a hybrid race that, in their particular case, was created out of at least four pulses of migrations into Europe. And depending on where in Europe the proportions of those mixes differ significantly (e.g. Sardinia with its high percentage of Anatolian farmer genes vs. Finland with its high Eurasian hunter-gather ancestry plus 5-15% Siberian/Asian genes). As such, the white race can tolerate some degree of further hybridization without changing its characteristics (phenotypical or otherwise).

    Second, people of European origins are not about to go extinct. Yes, there are strong pressures for demographic contraction (as there are in MOST developed countries, e.g. Japan, South Korea, and even China), but they are not guaranteed and are reversible (demographic projections beyond 25 years or so are basically worthless, because there are many grand assumptions built into them, and most of these contingencies typically don't bear out in real life).

    Finally, my concern is largely about my nation-state - the United States of America and her people as constituted today (the current "shareholders" of the country, to borrow Mr. Sailer's metaphor). *I* personally don't have obsessive racial consciousness and don't think of advancement/dominance of this particular race or that (even my own race). I am much more concerned about preserving my country - which is an actual tangible, physical entity - and its traditional institutions and culture, in other words its civilization (and, yes, this means that I think the country ought to be majority Northwestern European stock). A country that is 100% Russian might be dandy for people who are obsessed about a "white ethno-state," but to me that would be a very alien place. I'd rather live in a country that is only, say, 75% white that, nonetheless, has the Anglo-American civic traditions, law, and governance I love and cherish.

    So, yes, I oppose the degradation of the traditional Christian Anglo-American culture in this country. I abhor the constant demonization of the whites - the country's majority population - in the media. I am aghast at many ugly things that are happening today. But that doesn't mean I think that the solution is to carve the country into pieces or elevate - de jure - one segment of the population over another. I'd rather we found a solution that creates a more genuinely equitable society for most of the people of the country.

    White nationalists are always disparaging this idea of a "propositional nation" - how a country founded upon an idea cannot be. Well, "white nationalism" is an idea, a proposition. A country deliberately constructed along such an idea would be a creation based on an ideal rather than something that has developed organically through history. As you yourself pointed out in other comments, we already have a multiracial country. That is a real, concrete reality. And for those who operate in the realm of that firm reality, the goal is - or ought to be in any case - make the best country out of what IS, rather what could be based on fanciful internet notions of white nationalism (I think you called it "larping") that has practically no chance of being implemented (or would create an incredible amount of human suffering if it were to come about as a great deal of force would be necessary).

    My suspicion was that you were willfully evading addressing Citizen of a Silly Country’s racial concerns (by talking about cultural concerns). If this was not done willfully, then I retract the accusation. But the point does indeed remain that you were not addressing his concerns.

    Second, people of European origins are not about to go extinct.

    What causes racial extinction? The failure of a race to reproduce itself. This can happen because members of the race fail to have sufficient children or because they have too many children with members of other races. If either of these occurs for long enough, racial extinction must necessarily ensue. Whether your statement above can be deemed reasonable or not depends on what time frame your use of “about” implies. If you mean in the next ten years, no clearly not. Not even in the next hundred. But if you extrapolate out from present trends, it’s hardly fanciful to imagine that in two or three hundred years whites will be effectively extinct – ie reduced to 1% or less of the population in their ancestral territories, with ongoing racial intermixture ensuring that even this pitiful remainder will not be permanently maintained. If you want to argue that at some future point some intervention will become possible that would allow whites to avoid complete racial extinction, my question must be why wait until then? And if, as you hint, it’s already “too late” to do anything to secure white racial existence, then it’s difficult to see how or why this should suddenly become easier in the future.

    Whites today are in a situation in which too few whites are having children, and of those who are having children, too few are having them with other whites. Unless this is reversed, whites will indeed go extinct. It will not happen within our lifetimes, but people who care about their racial existence understandably ask why it must be permitted to occur ever? Why must it be permitted to occur if preventing it would not necessarily compromise or jeopardize any other group’s vital racial or cultural interests?

    What, really, is so offensive about the white desire to racially live on? Is it that you and your offspring’s freedom or right to interact with white people might be somewhat (perhaps not completely) curtailed? This would not be an uncommon reaction. In fact, outrage by non-whites that their lives might be inconvenienced by whites deciding to live on rather than die off, replete with thunderous denunciations of the alleged “racism” behind this motivation, is probably the most common reaction. This is so even when the whites in question strain to reassure the non-whites in question that they have no intention of “sending them home” or inconveniencing them beyond the minimum degree necessary to secure their own racial existence – generally meaning that some parts of America or the world (but not all parts) must necessarily becomes off-limits to non-whites, just as some parts would become off-limits to whites and other non-whites – that anything and everything that can be done and that is consistent with the accomplishment of this goal and with the minimization of disruption to non-white well-being, including the provision of compensation where that disruption exceeds some level, should be done. Such assurances do strangely little to quench the outrage.

    I am much more concerned about preserving my country – which is an actual tangible, physical entity – and its traditional institutions and culture, in other words its civilization

    Those things are virtually the anti-thesis of “tangible” and “physical.” If lost, they can be resurrected in a way that a race – which is actually physical and tangible – cannot be.

    Finally, my concern is largely about my nation-state – the United States of America and her people as constituted today (the current “shareholders” of the country, to borrow Mr. Sailer’s metaphor).

    Then you are shit out of luck. Because the policies and trends already in place guarantee that the United States of America as constituted today will not be so constituted tomorrow, and will be even less and less so with each passing year.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "What causes racial extinction? The failure of a race to reproduce itself."

    The white race is reproducing, perhaps not as fast or as vigorous as you would prefer. And while white population numbers may be lower, that does not necessarily mean the factors involved are attributed to some nefarious plot by elites to have this race become extinct.

    "This can happen because members of the race fail to have sufficient children or because they have too many children with members of other races."

    First, it is not up to you to demand that white men and women have "sufficient numbers of children". That is decision best left up to the couple. Second, there are those conservatives who lament about a lack of freedom of association. Well, those white men and women who marry and procreate with members from another race are exercising that liberty. Your personal shaming observably means little to them and is a definitive waste of energy and time on your part.

    "If either of these occurs for long enough, racial extinction must necessarily ensue."

    COULD ensue.

    "But if you extrapolate out from present trends, it’s hardly fanciful to imagine that in two or three hundred years whites will be effectively extinct – ie reduced to 1% or less of the population in their ancestral territories, with ongoing racial intermixture ensuring that even this pitiful remainder will not be permanently maintained."

    Not extinct. You are not even using the term correctly. Perhaps the white race could be significantly lower in 200-300 years, but the most important race is that of being human. Pro race is code for anti-humanity.

    "Whites today are in a situation in which too few whites are having children, and of those who are
    having children, too few are having them with other whites."

    You are absolutely consumed with something is essentially out of your control. People will make their own decisions regarding race and culture.

    "Unless this is reversed, whites will indeed go extinct."

    No, Chicken Little.

    "It will not happen within our lifetimes, but people who care about their racial existence understandably ask why it must be permitted to occur ever?"

    If white people are deathly concerned about this trend, they can form their own communities and sustain themselves in that manner.

    "What, really, is so offensive about the white desire to racially live on?"

    Again, you have that liberty. Feel free to live among people who are of the same mindset.

    "Is it that you and your offspring’s freedom or right to interact with white people might be somewhat (perhaps not completely) curtailed?"

    Is not what you are stating a violation of the covenant known as freedom of association? What about those white people who wish to continue their own interactions with non-whites, do they not have a voice in this matter?

    "This is so even when the whites in question strain to reassure the non-whites in question that they have no intention of “sending them home” or inconveniencing them beyond the minimum degree necessary to secure their own racial existence..."

    Except when the Alt Right clamors for "you must go back".

    "generally meaning that some parts of America or the world (but not all parts) must necessarily becomes off-limits to non-whites..."

    You mean your own private residence. But as far as designating an entire area or region, absolutely not. What world do you live in?
    , @Twinkie

    Whether your statement above can be deemed reasonable or not depends on what time frame your use of “about” implies. If you mean in the next ten years, no clearly not. Not even in the next hundred. But if you extrapolate out from present trends, it’s hardly fanciful to imagine that in two or three hundred years whites will be effectively extinct – ie reduced to 1% or less of the population in their ancestral territories
     
    You are veering into science fiction territory here. As I mentioned before, predicting demographic trends 50 years out from the current trajectory is likely to be HIGHLY faulty and inaccurate, to say the least. Predicting it three hundred years into the future is fanciful, to put kindly, and quite insane, to be ungenerous.

    Those things are virtually the anti-thesis of “tangible” and “physical.”
     
    The United States of America, a nation-state that actually exists today within the boundaries of geography and which contains a specific group of people some 300 million plus, is not tangible and physical?

    I am beginning to see that your alleged suspicion of my supposed dishonesty is projection. You seem determined to twist my words and attach meanings to them that you'd like to attribute to a straw man.

    If lost, they can be resurrected in a way that a race – which is actually physical and tangible – cannot be.
     
    First of all, history tells us that once a polity is broken or erased, it very rarely, if ever, comes back. Second, your conception of race - people as a snapshot, frozen in time and place - is simply inaccurate. By your own argument, the boundaries of a race are constantly changing. Of course, being a real phenomenon, it can be altered drastically or killed, but it, being a living phenomenon, is also capable of tolerating changes at the margins.

    By the way (and this is a very minor side point), from a purely genetic sense, a race certainly can be "resurrected" by selective breeding, provided there are descendants, however "corrupted." How do you think the Japanese restored the original Akita-inu as a breed?

    What, really, is so offensive about the white desire to racially live on? Is it that you and your offspring’s freedom or right to interact with white people might be somewhat (perhaps not completely) curtailed?
     
    This becomes a nonsensical question once you falsify the science fiction notion that the white race is heading toward extinction.

    In real life, cultures change much faster and more dramatically than races do (just look at the past fifty years of America). As such, I am far more concerned about the degradation of our culture, which presents a far more direct and immediate threat to the existence of the United States than the very remote and unlikely possibility that white people are going to die out.

    By the way, my wife is white and my children are half-white. Their children, my future grand children, will likely be three-quarters white. Preventing me from interacting with these people I love is not a minor inconvenience. It is fate worse than death, and I will react very violently to those who propose to separate me from them. Thankfully, many others will stand with me.
    , @Ian M.

    Those things [a country and its traditional institutions] are virtually the anti-thesis of “tangible” and “physical.” If lost, they can be resurrected in a way that a race – which is actually physical and tangible – cannot be.
     
    'Physical' and 'tangible' are not the best descriptors of a country, true. But a country is a concrete, particular entity. (And the territory of a country is often marked by tangible, physical features in a way that the boundaries of a race are not).

    Race, considered in itself, is an abstraction (like humanity).

    Both are real.

    If a country is destroyed, it cannot be resurrected.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  141. @Twinkie

    Yet so fraught with difficulty has this definition been that I could be forgiven for quipping that few people doubted the existence of the white race until racialists tried to prove it. I don’t mean to be flippant. This a most serious issue. Who is ever going to throw the full weight of his support behind a political movement which, on closer examination, may or may not include him? The uncertainties will overwhelm all but the most idealistic.
     
    I have South African (Boer) friends who grew up during the Apartheid. They told me that, given that many South African whites have a small fraction of black and Cape Malay ancestry, a lot of racial categorization during the Apartheid was rather arbitrary (sometimes randomly dividing even siblings!). As you point out rightly, there was a constant problem of defining where the racial boundary was. Anyway you cut it, there was always going to be a great deal of aggrieved people who could reasonably make the case that they were unjustly left out (e.g. "I'm 66% - why am *I* out while that guy who is 67% is in?" or worse, "I am 66% - why am *I* out while that guy who is 65% but has blond hair and fairer skin is in?"). Race makes a great deal of sense as a demographic construct, but legally it is a nightmare to define, because it is, while a real phenomenon, one that does not have discrete boundaries.

    My friends opposed and still oppose the ANC rule in South Africa, but they also think that Apartheid was neither sustainable nor just.

    My friends opposed and still oppose the ANC rule in South Africa, but they also think that Apartheid was neither sustainable nor just.

    Then your friends are fools, for it was neither unsustainable nor unjust.

    Unless whites in S. Africa are able to to secure recognition that some parts of S. Africa (however small or insignificant) are theirs and theirs alone to inhabit, in the fullness of time, complete negrification is bound to occur.

    In a hundred years our planet’s black population will have grown to some four billion. It cannot be assumed that Africa will contain them all. The desire to avoid negrification is probably the most compelling argument I can make for racial separatism. It is something that all non-black groups should be able to understand the benefit of, with some smaller portion of the members of each such group also understanding the long-term necessity of it, if negrification is to be permanently avoided.

    I urge and beg you to ponder this.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Then your friends are fools, for it was neither unsustainable nor unjust.
     
    You are something. First, you claim to predict the demography three hundred years into the future with considerable conviction. Now, you insult my friends who actually grew up and lived through the turbulence of RSA and, in your great wisdom, claim to know more about the Apartheid than these "fools" as you called them.

    I think we are done.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  142. Svigor says:

    Now this is rich. Trying to ascribe the enormous scientific and economic progress over the last two centuries to nation-states, when in reality such progress is due to the values of the Enlightnment.

    You can’t even spell “Enlightenment.”

    Nation-states at least have the advantage of being composed of people who are actually responsible for all human discovery and innovation.

    What are the values of the Enlightenment made up of, and how many discoveries or innovations have they made?

    In fact, strong nation-states has historically been at odds with entrepeuners, scientists and artists, and tried to blot progress because it didn’t fit their nationalist ideology. The classic example is Nazi Germany, where art, science and industry were controlled by the state, and any type of contribution had to be analysed on the grounds of whether it was “Aryan”, “Germanic” or not.

    You left out the part where Nazi Germany’s progress was retarded. Insofar as it was, the loss was about people (say, Jewish physicists), and not values, and I doubt they lost any sleep about the loss of art, for example. In fact, I seem to recall Germany gaining quite a lot of art, during their expansionist phase. As for science and industry, they had a pretty good run there, too.

    I think America and her stupid communism (AKA leftism, AKA liberalism, AKA progressivism) is more instructive. We could have been on Mars by now, but we chose Diversity and the attendant welfare state instead.

    The U.S.S.R was a strong nation-state, with all the characteristics of a strong nation-state, from national borders to a national army, and yet it ended capitalist freedom. Trying to say that nationalism is responsible for the success of capitalism and science is asinine and easily refuted by the historical evidence.

    Yeah, run by fiercely anti-racist, anti-nationalist, anti-HBD, globalists. The only reason they closed their borders was because they turned all of their territory into a jail. Great example of nationalism.

    No, the progress of the last two centuries were due to the Enlightnment values of personal freedom, rationalism and a limited government.

    (You still can’t spell “Enlightenment.”)

    That seems anti-Chinese to me, in addition to being anti-human (giving credit to “values” for human accomplishments).

    “Nationalism is the cancer of Mankind.”

    You spelled Leftism wrong. Leftists murdered well over 100 million people in the 20th century alone. All in the name of equalitarianism, anti-racism, anti-HBD, anti-nationalism, etc. No other ideology comes close to that kind of virulence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
    "You can’t even spell “Enlightenment.”"

    Congratulations on being capable of using a spell-checker. My 5 year-old niece can do the same. Pointing out orthographic mistakes from your opponent is the lowest you can go try to appear smarter than him. I could misspell a billion words and I would still be smarter than you. BTW, you have misspelled words too.

    "Nation-states at least have the advantage of being composed of people who are actually responsible for all human discovery and innovation."

    A blanket statement that means literally nothing. Progress has been made, mostly, by individuals and voluntary associations of individuals(corporations). There is no evidence whatsoever that nation-states are either responsible for progress or that they have fostered progress.

    "What are the values of the Enlightenment made up of, and how many discoveries or innovations have they made?"

    Scientific rationalism, individualism, tolerance for individual differences and individual and property rights. I think that you are playing dumb here. Of course values do not make discoveries; but these values are what allowed people to make discoveries and innovations.

    "You left out the part where Nazi Germany’s progress was retarded. Insofar as it was, the loss was about people (say, Jewish physicists), and not values, and I doubt they lost any sleep about the loss of art, for example. In fact, I seem to recall Germany gaining quite a lot of art, during their expansionist phase. As for science and industry, they had a pretty good run there, too."

    That is the whole point: the Jewish scientists left Germany because the people in power valued "race" more than individuals, and did not respect individual rights of all irrespective of race. Redundant argumentation.

    "I think America and her stupid communism (AKA leftism, AKA liberalism, AKA progressivism) is more instructive. We could have been on Mars by now, but we chose Diversity and the attendant welfare state instead."

    What evidence do you have that we could have reached Mars now? Many of the scientists that worked on the Apollo Project were foreign, and would not have been allowed to immigrate if a strong conservative government were in power.

    "Yeah, run by fiercely anti-racist, anti-nationalist, anti-HBD, globalists. The only reason they closed their borders was because they turned all of their territory into a jail. Great example of nationalism."

    Ok. Nazi Germany was run by nationalist government that valued race and was not globalist, and it was still a disaster. My point stands.

    "(You still can’t spell “Enlightenment.”)"

    You can't form a cogent argument. I guess we are even.

    "That seems anti-Chinese to me, in addition to being anti-human (giving credit to “values” for human accomplishments)."

    China progressed the most when the emperors allowed individual freedom. It all changed when Shi Huang Di centralized government and eliminated individual freedom. China stagnated for 600 years.

    "You spelled Leftism wrong. Leftists murdered well over 100 million people in the 20th century alone. All in the name of equalitarianism, anti-racism, anti-HBD, anti-nationalism, etc. No other ideology comes close to that kind of virulence."

    Leftism did not murder 100 million people. That is a myth. Of course, you gloss over Nazi Germany, a regime that gassed 6 million people, with over a million being little kids, and worked another 14 million to death. At least the communists had a more fair and universal morality, while the Nazis upheld some races as better than others. That is far more odious in my estimation, since you have no say in what ethnicity you are born into Also, what has leftism got to do with anything? Even if communists had killed 100 million people, the fact is that around 80% of wars are caused by nationalism. My point stands

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  143. Svigor says:

    I should point out that WWII was largely down to anti-nationalist forces, AKA, communism. Communists murdered tens of millions of people before Hitler became chancellor of Germany. Without the specter of communist genocide and impending communist revolution, the Nazis probably wouldn’t have risen to power in Germany. The whole raison d’etre of Nazism was Nationalist extremism to fight anti-Nationalist extremism.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  144. @Citizen of a Silly Country

    From what I remember, America was a reasonably happy and functional place at least up through the 1980s, and it wasn’t an ethnostate.
     
    Yeah, it kind of was. Up to 1965, it was 85% to 90% white. Even by the 1980s, it was still 75% to 85% white and Anglo-Saxon culture and institutions were dominant, so it was American-European ethno-state.

    That being said, I agree generally agree with your prescriptions. However, to enact such draconian measures - and they are - there would need to be an open acceptance by whites that we want the United States to remain at the very least a semi-ethnostate dominated by whites. Otherwise, why do we want to stop all of those good people from coming to our country and being "Americans" just like us.

    Because the status quo is open-borders extremism, it is tempting to take extreme positions in opposition
     
    It's not tempting; it's necessary. You might have noticed to that talking nice hasn't worked so well.

    but where does it end? Must one’s ancestors have spoken English in order to retain American citizenship? Are you going to send the Irish-Americans back to Ireland?

     

    Irish-Americans look and act pretty white to me. And since my kids have some Mc in them, I'll let the Irish stick around. ;)

    But that argument is similar to "Well, there's no perfect definition of the color orange so there's no color orange" or because sometimes it's tough to define where one neighborhood ends and another begins, there's no such thing as neighborhoods.

    I'll ask the Japanese or Koreans to help me out on the whole who gets in and who doesn't. I'm pretty sure that we can figure it out.

    Regardless, I'm not so deluded as to think as of this will happen. The best hope for American whites is that we slowly start thinking of ourselves an ethnic group because we noticed that everybody else does and that we start forming ethic groups/enclaves like everyone else.

    Basically, our best shot is to act like Jews. There will be no American white ethno-state, but we can carve out a piece of the coming multi-everything society.

    Regardless, I’m not so deluded as to think as of this will happen. The best hope for American whites is that we slowly start thinking of ourselves an ethnic group because we noticed that everybody else does and that we start forming ethic groups/enclaves like everyone else.

    Basically, our best shot is to act like Jews. There will be no American white ethno-state, but we can carve out a piece of the coming multi-everything society.

    If this is what you believe, should you not then be seeking out alliances with other groups who would support you in that effort, in return for your support for their efforts?

    It would seem the most logical thing in the world, and yet my experience with people who claim to think as you do above is that they prefer to slap away a helping hand from other groups. It is almost as if they are saying “You bastards are the agents of my racial demise, and now you want to present yourselves as my saviors? No dice!” In other words, if WASP types are going to have their enclaves (or whatever), then it’s going to be solely through their own efforts, not from working in cahoots with anybody else.

    There seems to be a strong element of cutting off your nose to spite your face involved here, because it is hard to see how you’d getting a better deal working in isolation.

    Perhaps it’s all about keeping some gunpowder dry just in case, miracle of miracles, the opportunity for one last crack at racial vengeance presents itself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  145. Svigor says:

    I don’t think the ideological bloc that works incessantly to foment ethnic and (to a far lesser extent these days) strife is averse to conflict. The left is against the nation-state because it produces a particular set of winners and losers in which they are not at the top.

    Precisely. Communism (AKA leftism) has two phases: the revolutionary phase, wherein it attempts to seize power, and the anti-counter-revolutionary phase, wherein it has seized power and erects a totalitarian state to ensure it remains in power forever.

    Second, people of European origins are not about to go extinct.

    Their historical habitats are being eradicated, deliberately flooded with invasive species. So the ground work is being laid, and the slow process of extinction has begun.

    Second, people of European origins are not about to go extinct. Yes, there are strong pressures for demographic contraction (as there are in MOST developed countries, e.g. Japan, South Korea, and even China),

    What we are on about has nothing in common with what is going on in Japan, Korea, or China, and you know it. Those populations are not being race-replaced.

    I make sense, but I must be lying somehow? Well, friend, I can’t do anything about your feelings.

    All the best lies are 90% truth, something anyone with any wisdom at all knows perfectly well.

    The nation-state remains the best foundation for capitalism

    Excellent reason to get rid of it.

    Western capitalism is wholly aligned against western Nationalism; all the more reason to support Western nationalism. But, I release you from the trap you put yourself in; everybody knows communists/socialists/leftists/etc. want to destroy the White race, and are fine with working alongside Capitalists to get the job done.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  146. @Charles Erwin Wilson II

    With all due respect to Steve (and Trump and Bannon), civic nationalism won’t work over the long run.
     
    Nope, because it didn't work for the Romans (just a flash in the pan), or for the Byzantines (just a richer, if smaller, pan). Nope, it can't work at all.

    You are right that we have a huge problem with the elites. In fact, the elites are the problem. But your solution is unrealistic, and wholly divorced from the American experience.

    Maybe citizenism is suboptimal, but you have to offer a viable alternative. Otherwise we are in for a genuine fight - and, make no mistake, it is a death match. So if you don't want to die in the Gulag, try helping instead of pining for a utopian delusion.

    But your solution is unrealistic, and wholly divorced from the American experience. . . So if you don’t want to die in the Gulag, try helping instead of pining for a utopian delusion.

    You misunderstand my comment. I was simply speaking about multi-everything societies in general and what is the optimal solution, i.e. nation-states work best.

    Our current situation would never allow such a solution. I have laid out many times what I believe to be the best, most realistic path for American whites who want their people to survive. I very cleverly call it the Act Like Jews (ALJ) plan.

    Whites should start very, very small. Create European-American (or some other less racial name) business groups or charities literally identical to Jewish or Asian American groups. These groups would be to help poor whites and to provide mentors for young whites in EXACTLY the same way that Jewish, Asian or women’s groups do. (Indeed, I would use those other group’s charters and legal documents to create our group, i.e. if you have a problem with us, you have a problem with them.) There would be absolutely nothing political about these groups. They are just trying to help a group of people that doesn’t have much help from private groups at the moment.

    Once European American groups are established and no longer seen as Nazi breeding grounds, we could start moving slowly toward more political goals, eventually establishing lobby groups, ADL-type groups and think tanks so we could provide a paid venue for the Steve Sailers of the world.

    Bit by bit, you carve out your community with political power within the larger society.

    Basically, we’d just follow the Jewish model. No civil war. No white ethno-state in the NW.

    I’m already working on this in my own little way. Joining civic and business groups and looking for kindred spirits. As whites realize that they are becoming a minority, many of them will start to think like a minority and that will be the time to start moving forward.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Whites should start very, very small. Create European-American (or some other less racial name) business groups or charities literally identical to Jewish or Asian American groups. These groups would be to help poor whites and to provide mentors for young whites in EXACTLY the same way that Jewish, Asian or women’s groups do."

    OK, nothing inherently immoral or wrong about this approach. It's just few American whites identify themselves as "European-American" publicly or privately, as it is not that big of a deal to them.

    "Once European American groups are established and no longer seen as Nazi breeding grounds, we could start moving slowly toward more political goals, eventually establishing lobby groups, ADL-type groups and think tanks so we could provide a paid venue for the Steve Sailers of the world."

    And what happens when there is opposition by "European-Americans" who oppose these associations, either because they disagree with their philosophy or tactics? Are they labeled "cucks" or "race traitors" merely for exercising their free speech rights?

    "As whites realize that they are becoming a minority, many of them will start to think like a minority and that will be the time to start moving forward."

    Perhaps, perhaps not.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  147. @Twinkie

    Yet, you could tell a bunch of American whites that Africans can become just as “American” as they are, and most of them will believe you. That’s why Steve (and Twinkie) are wrong.
     
    I don't know about Mr. Sailer, but that is certainly a mischaracterization of my view. I think some ethno-national groups are more assimilative than others. And I base this not on my personal opinions and anecdotes, but on concrete studies of proxies that approximate reasonable definitions of assimilation (economic, cultural, and social in the study): https://www.manhattan-institute.org/pdf/cr_76.pdf

    And even with high-assimilation groups, numbers - as Mr. Derbyshire would say - is of paramount importance. Too many immigrants of any stripe are liable to slow assimilation (which is why I support immigration restriction, both legal or otherwise, given the currently rather high percentage of foreign-born population, among whom I am one).

    The other important factor is what people such as Mark Krikorian (CIS) has long preached over the years (that is, long before "Alt-Right" and Trump became things of note) - that assimilation requires the host society to encourage assimilation (I know, crazy, right?). And we all know our society doesn't anymore. That's something we need to fix badly. From my day one in America, I learned to say the Pledge of Allegiance - in essence I was encouraged to give fealty to God, country, and community here. That just simply isn't done, because our elite stratum has been captured by those who feel greater kinship with elites in other societies rather than the "lowborn" of our own. I think it's likely that more recent graduates of the Ivy League went on to work in investment/banking in London than served in Afghanistan or Iraq.

    To recap, is "civic nationalism" workable today? Probably not. Not with high immigration (and of the wrong type) and not with a "multicultural" elite that doesn't insist on traditional American patriotism and assimilation. What then, should be the answer? Full on race war? Racial separation? Or work through political and social forces to recapture (or rebuild) some of the institutions and re-enact immigration restriction and assimilation? Which is more likely to succeed? Which is less likely to cause suffering?

    Remember that while reform is difficult to achieve, breaking a society is nearly irreversible. I say we owe our children an earnest attempt at the former, before we take the drastic and likely highly destructive step toward the latter... because if that latter were to come about, it won't be the current generation of adults paying the deepest price. It will be the children (along with the old and the infirm).

    What silviosilver said.

    But I’ll add my own comments.

    And even with high-assimilation groups, numbers – as Mr. Derbyshire would say – is of paramount importance. Too many immigrants of any stripe are liable to slow assimilation (which is why I support immigration restriction, both legal or otherwise, given the currently rather high percentage of foreign-born population, among whom I am one).

    You can’t have a steady stream of different races into a country dominated by another race and expect the latter race to survive, especially once the latter race’s % of the population drops below 80% to 90%. At that point, you would have to stop all immigration immediately. Even then, the high-assimilation groups would eventually merge with the original race to create a new race. The original race would cease to exist like MP’s parrot.

    It would be a peaceful demise, but a death all the same.

    What then, should be the answer? Full on race war? Racial separation? Or work through political and social forces to recapture (or rebuild) some of the institutions and re-enact immigration restriction and assimilation? Which is more likely to succeed? Which is less likely to cause suffering?

    See my answer to Charles something II somewhere around here. No. No race war. The best hope for whites is to act like Jews. (Of course, American Jews intermarry a lot, so maybe there is no hope.) Create European American groups and bit by bit carve out a place for ourselves within our coming Brazil of the North society.

    For a people to survive they simply must exclude other peoples. The Japanese and Israelis understand this, but, then, they are adults.

    If you let your mind go where it the logic leads you, you will see that there is a very harsh reality to surviving as a people. I don’t think that even around here most of the people are willing to follow that logic to its conclusion. I can assure you that it’s not a pleasant experience and one that I resisted for a long time. And I’m still not emotionally comfortable with it.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    expect the latter race to survive, especially once the latter race’s % of the population drops below 80% to 90%. At that point, you would have to stop all immigration immediately. Even then, the high-assimilation groups would eventually merge with the original race to create a new race. The original race would cease to exist like MP’s parrot.
     
    Let me ask you something. What is your definition of a white person? Someone with 99% European genetics? How about 75%?

    For a people to survive they simply must exclude other peoples. The Japanese and Israelis understand this, but, then, they are adults.
     
    Both of these groups of people are genetic hybrids, with the Israelis having comparatively VERY HIGH genetic diversity. What bind these respective peoples together as unitary nations are things such as common descent (not the same as genetic propinquity), shared history (very short in the case of Israel), and constructed self-conception as a people ("ideology" if you will).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  148. Corvinus says:
    @silviosilver
    My suspicion was that you were willfully evading addressing Citizen of a Silly Country's racial concerns (by talking about cultural concerns). If this was not done willfully, then I retract the accusation. But the point does indeed remain that you were not addressing his concerns.

    Second, people of European origins are not about to go extinct.
     
    What causes racial extinction? The failure of a race to reproduce itself. This can happen because members of the race fail to have sufficient children or because they have too many children with members of other races. If either of these occurs for long enough, racial extinction must necessarily ensue. Whether your statement above can be deemed reasonable or not depends on what time frame your use of "about" implies. If you mean in the next ten years, no clearly not. Not even in the next hundred. But if you extrapolate out from present trends, it's hardly fanciful to imagine that in two or three hundred years whites will be effectively extinct - ie reduced to 1% or less of the population in their ancestral territories, with ongoing racial intermixture ensuring that even this pitiful remainder will not be permanently maintained. If you want to argue that at some future point some intervention will become possible that would allow whites to avoid complete racial extinction, my question must be why wait until then? And if, as you hint, it's already "too late" to do anything to secure white racial existence, then it's difficult to see how or why this should suddenly become easier in the future.

    Whites today are in a situation in which too few whites are having children, and of those who are having children, too few are having them with other whites. Unless this is reversed, whites will indeed go extinct. It will not happen within our lifetimes, but people who care about their racial existence understandably ask why it must be permitted to occur ever? Why must it be permitted to occur if preventing it would not necessarily compromise or jeopardize any other group's vital racial or cultural interests?

    What, really, is so offensive about the white desire to racially live on? Is it that you and your offspring's freedom or right to interact with white people might be somewhat (perhaps not completely) curtailed? This would not be an uncommon reaction. In fact, outrage by non-whites that their lives might be inconvenienced by whites deciding to live on rather than die off, replete with thunderous denunciations of the alleged "racism" behind this motivation, is probably the most common reaction. This is so even when the whites in question strain to reassure the non-whites in question that they have no intention of "sending them home" or inconveniencing them beyond the minimum degree necessary to secure their own racial existence - generally meaning that some parts of America or the world (but not all parts) must necessarily becomes off-limits to non-whites, just as some parts would become off-limits to whites and other non-whites - that anything and everything that can be done and that is consistent with the accomplishment of this goal and with the minimization of disruption to non-white well-being, including the provision of compensation where that disruption exceeds some level, should be done. Such assurances do strangely little to quench the outrage.

    I am much more concerned about preserving my country – which is an actual tangible, physical entity – and its traditional institutions and culture, in other words its civilization
     
    Those things are virtually the anti-thesis of "tangible" and "physical." If lost, they can be resurrected in a way that a race - which is actually physical and tangible - cannot be.

    Finally, my concern is largely about my nation-state – the United States of America and her people as constituted today (the current “shareholders” of the country, to borrow Mr. Sailer’s metaphor).
     
    Then you are shit out of luck. Because the policies and trends already in place guarantee that the United States of America as constituted today will not be so constituted tomorrow, and will be even less and less so with each passing year.

    “What causes racial extinction? The failure of a race to reproduce itself.”

    The white race is reproducing, perhaps not as fast or as vigorous as you would prefer. And while white population numbers may be lower, that does not necessarily mean the factors involved are attributed to some nefarious plot by elites to have this race become extinct.

    “This can happen because members of the race fail to have sufficient children or because they have too many children with members of other races.”

    First, it is not up to you to demand that white men and women have “sufficient numbers of children”. That is decision best left up to the couple. Second, there are those conservatives who lament about a lack of freedom of association. Well, those white men and women who marry and procreate with members from another race are exercising that liberty. Your personal shaming observably means little to them and is a definitive waste of energy and time on your part.

    “If either of these occurs for long enough, racial extinction must necessarily ensue.”

    COULD ensue.

    “But if you extrapolate out from present trends, it’s hardly fanciful to imagine that in two or three hundred years whites will be effectively extinct – ie reduced to 1% or less of the population in their ancestral territories, with ongoing racial intermixture ensuring that even this pitiful remainder will not be permanently maintained.”

    Not extinct. You are not even using the term correctly. Perhaps the white race could be significantly lower in 200-300 years, but the most important race is that of being human. Pro race is code for anti-humanity.

    “Whites today are in a situation in which too few whites are having children, and of those who are
    having children, too few are having them with other whites.”

    You are absolutely consumed with something is essentially out of your control. People will make their own decisions regarding race and culture.

    “Unless this is reversed, whites will indeed go extinct.”

    No, Chicken Little.

    “It will not happen within our lifetimes, but people who care about their racial existence understandably ask why it must be permitted to occur ever?”

    If white people are deathly concerned about this trend, they can form their own communities and sustain themselves in that manner.

    “What, really, is so offensive about the white desire to racially live on?”

    Again, you have that liberty. Feel free to live among people who are of the same mindset.

    “Is it that you and your offspring’s freedom or right to interact with white people might be somewhat (perhaps not completely) curtailed?”

    Is not what you are stating a violation of the covenant known as freedom of association? What about those white people who wish to continue their own interactions with non-whites, do they not have a voice in this matter?

    “This is so even when the whites in question strain to reassure the non-whites in question that they have no intention of “sending them home” or inconveniencing them beyond the minimum degree necessary to secure their own racial existence…”

    Except when the Alt Right clamors for “you must go back”.

    “generally meaning that some parts of America or the world (but not all parts) must necessarily becomes off-limits to non-whites…”

    You mean your own private residence. But as far as designating an entire area or region, absolutely not. What world do you live in?

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    First, it is not up to you to demand that white men and women have “sufficient numbers of children”. That is decision best left up to the couple.
     
    The requirements for ongoing racial existence are objective, not subjective. Whites today objectively - please reread, a thousand times if you have to, objectively - have fewer children than necessary to replace white numbers.

    Left unchecked, this trend must - no ifs, buts, or maybes - result in eventual racial extinction.

    It's not up to me or you any one individual to determine the average number of children per couple necessary for racial survival. It's simply a fact of racial reality.

    You are absolutely consumed with something is essentially out of your control. People will make their own decisions regarding race and culture.
     
    I am seeking to influence their behavior, not control it. Too many of them make such fateful life decisions on the basis of almost complete racial ignorance. I wish to reduce this knowledge deficit - you, on the other hand, may have other motives.

    If white people are deathly concerned about this trend, they can form their own communities and sustain themselves in that manner.
     
    That can only happen if they have the right to exclude racial outsiders from a given territory. Today, they do not have such rights. This needs to change.

    What about those white people who wish to continue their own interactions with non-whites, do they not have a voice in this matter?
     
    I think they should have a voice. Ideally, racial separation and preservation would be made available to those who want it; it would not be imposed on those who don't.

    Except when the Alt Right clamors for “you must go back”.
     
    They are a troubling element, and I could not disagree with them more. I think they have their uses in terms of the Overton Window, however.

    You mean your own private residence. But as far as designating an entire area or region, absolutely not. What world do you live in?
     
    One in which I wish to see racial fools like you thoroughly vanquished. Vanquished so badly that no one for ten thousand years will ever take your deranged "anti-racist" swill seriously again.
    , @Samuel Skinner

    Not extinct. You are not even using the term correctly. Perhaps the white race could be significantly lower in 200-300 years, but the most important race is that of being human. Pro race is code for anti-humanity.
     
    The Jews don't believe that. I'm inclined to trust my coethnics on this one.

    As for your moral valuation does that mean if humanity speciates, it is okay for one branch to kill the other? When we get genetic engineering do the different tailored lines have different moral value?

    No, Chicken Little.
     
    It has actually happened before.
    http://250bpm.com/blog:113

    If white people are deathly concerned about this trend, they can form their own communities and sustain themselves in that manner.
     
    Which then get labeled racism and crushed.

    Is not what you are stating a violation of the covenant known as freedom of association? What about those white people who wish to continue their own interactions with non-whites, do they not have a voice in this matter?
     
    They can go live in countries with non-whites. It is up to the non-whites though; they aren't pets who exist for your amusement.


    You mean your own private residence. But as far as designating an entire area or region, absolutely not. What world do you live in?
     
    Apparently we live in a world where words are useless and only the willingness to kill other human beings is a valid way to resolve differences.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  149. @Barnard
    Trump's ambassador to the U.N. Nikki Haley wanted to continue with this agreement. If Stephen Miller ever leaves the White House the cause of immigration patriotism will be lost.

    However, she said, “our decisions on immigration policies must always be made by Americans and Americans alone.”
     
    It must have pained Haley greatly to have to say this.

    Nikki Haley must be removed from the Republican Party. Nikki Haley agrees with Obama that the historic American nation must be racially transformed by mass immigration and multiculturalism. Haley is the spawn of Asian Indian interlopers who infiltrated the United States because of the 1965 Immigration Act.

    Nikki Haley has a deep hatred for the Anglo-Celtic colonists and settlers who created the United States. Haley is an ungrateful infiltrator who should be deported back to India.

    Nikki Haley was the Republican Party politician who called for the removal of all monuments and memorials that honored the brave soldiers who fought for the Confederacy. Nikki Haley must be removed from the Republican Party.

    Nikki Haley can go straight to hell. President Trump must make it clear that Nikki Haley is on her way out of the Trump administration and the GOP.

    Nikki Haley is an enemy of the European Christian ancestral core of the United States.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  150. Corvinus says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country

    But your solution is unrealistic, and wholly divorced from the American experience. . . So if you don’t want to die in the Gulag, try helping instead of pining for a utopian delusion.
     
    You misunderstand my comment. I was simply speaking about multi-everything societies in general and what is the optimal solution, i.e. nation-states work best.

    Our current situation would never allow such a solution. I have laid out many times what I believe to be the best, most realistic path for American whites who want their people to survive. I very cleverly call it the Act Like Jews (ALJ) plan.

    Whites should start very, very small. Create European-American (or some other less racial name) business groups or charities literally identical to Jewish or Asian American groups. These groups would be to help poor whites and to provide mentors for young whites in EXACTLY the same way that Jewish, Asian or women's groups do. (Indeed, I would use those other group's charters and legal documents to create our group, i.e. if you have a problem with us, you have a problem with them.) There would be absolutely nothing political about these groups. They are just trying to help a group of people that doesn't have much help from private groups at the moment.

    Once European American groups are established and no longer seen as Nazi breeding grounds, we could start moving slowly toward more political goals, eventually establishing lobby groups, ADL-type groups and think tanks so we could provide a paid venue for the Steve Sailers of the world.

    Bit by bit, you carve out your community with political power within the larger society.

    Basically, we'd just follow the Jewish model. No civil war. No white ethno-state in the NW.

    I'm already working on this in my own little way. Joining civic and business groups and looking for kindred spirits. As whites realize that they are becoming a minority, many of them will start to think like a minority and that will be the time to start moving forward.

    “Whites should start very, very small. Create European-American (or some other less racial name) business groups or charities literally identical to Jewish or Asian American groups. These groups would be to help poor whites and to provide mentors for young whites in EXACTLY the same way that Jewish, Asian or women’s groups do.”

    OK, nothing inherently immoral or wrong about this approach. It’s just few American whites identify themselves as “European-American” publicly or privately, as it is not that big of a deal to them.

    “Once European American groups are established and no longer seen as Nazi breeding grounds, we could start moving slowly toward more political goals, eventually establishing lobby groups, ADL-type groups and think tanks so we could provide a paid venue for the Steve Sailers of the world.”

    And what happens when there is opposition by “European-Americans” who oppose these associations, either because they disagree with their philosophy or tactics? Are they labeled “cucks” or “race traitors” merely for exercising their free speech rights?

    “As whites realize that they are becoming a minority, many of them will start to think like a minority and that will be the time to start moving forward.”

    Perhaps, perhaps not.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  151. Republicans who push sovereignty-sapping globalization and nation-wrecking open borders mass immigration must be removed from power to protect the United States of America. Any Republican puppet politician who attacks the concept of national sovereignty or the political framework of the nation-state must be removed from power.

    Globalization and mass immigration are attacks on national sovereignty and the nation-state. The European Christian nation-states are under attack from globalizers and transnational political forces that wish to destroy the nation-state as the operating political framework of the world.

    The Wall Street Journal recently had a story about how Marco Rubio and Mike Pence are encouraging more foreigners to infiltrate Florida and the United States. The article tells the treasonous tale of how Marco Rubio and Mike Pence are rewarding the infiltration of Venezuelan foreigners who are sneakily using tourist visas to invade and infiltrate the United States. President Trump should fire Mike Pence immediately.

    If President Trump has ordered Mike Pence to welcome the Venezuelan invaders, then President Trump must be defeated in the presidential primaries for the 2020 presidential election.

    I hereby accuse Vice President Pence and Senator Marco Rubio of treason against the United States by openly attacking the sovereignty of the United States by encouraging the invasion of the United States by foreigners. Bye, Bye nation-state sovereignty, the globalizers in the GOP want the United States of America to die.

    Mike Pence and Marco Rubio have a long history of supporting open borders mass immigration and amnesty for illegal alien invaders. Marco Rubio and Mike Pence must go.

    Florida is being swamped by Puerto Ricans, Venezuelans and many other types of foreign invaders. The encouragement of foreign infiltration by Pence and Rubio is an attack on Westphalian Sovereignty and the sovereignty of the United States as a nation.

    Wall Street Journal Article On Mike Pence’s and Marco Rubio’s Attacks On United States National Sovereignty:

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/like-the-cubans-before-them-venezuelan-exiles-are-transforming-florida-politics-1512327743

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  152. @Faraday's Bobcat

    Yeah, it kind of was. Up to 1965, it was 85% to 90% white. Even by the 1980s, it was still 75% to 85% white and Anglo-Saxon culture and institutions were dominant, so it was American-European ethno-state.
     
    If that's your definition of an ethnostate, then I can live with it. But you get people around here thinking they're going to deport everyone who puts red pepper in their food.

    Because they have higher birth rates. Unless you want to start sterilizing the mestizos, we are going to be kicking a substantial portion of the country out.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  153. @silviosilver

    There is hierarchy in the sense that neither individuals nor groups are in actual fact equal. Recognizing this is just recognizing reality for what it is. I would say this still allows for an ethic of treating people as equally as possible, but not more so.
     
    I would like to point out that this still leaves a lot of room for equal treatment, both individual and group.

    I have done my share of reading up on Nietzschean morality and even though his arguments often make sense, I don't find them emotionally compelling. I think "slave" morality makes for a much nicer world than "master" morality. We can probably all think of someone who is much more accomplished than ourselves - would you prefer he treated you haughtily as befits someone of his exalted station, or kindly and compassionately? To ask is to answer, really. And of course you would have been far better off as a proletarian in the "slavish" EU than in the "masterly" Roman empire, that's just obvious - and that would be true even if the latter were no more economically advanced than Rome. So the fact that people/s are not remotely equal in any fact-based sense hardly matters to me in terms of the treatment I think they should be afforded.

    The obvious changes would be things like ceasing the bellyaching over "achievement gaps." These would just be accepted as unremarkable facts of reality. What would instead concern us is whether people are making sufficient absolute progress, not whether gaps are being relatively closed or not. Isn't it better if both your income and Warren Buffet's increase at 10% per annum than if yours increases by 2% and his by 1%? Well, Gore Vidal said "It's not enough to succeed; others must fail," so if this is true, then only the latter case satisfies this condition, but I think this reasoning only makes sense with respect to a personal rival. If I don't know Warren Buffet, and I don't move in the same social circles, I wouldn't be bummed if he was moving away from me provided I was making satisfactory absolute progress. (I've only mentioned income here, but you could extend the same reasoning to numerous other spheres.)

    And of course you would have been far better off as a proletarian in the “slavish” EU than in the “masterly” Roman empire, that’s just obvious – and that would be true even if the latter were no more economically advanced than Rome.

    Rome lasted about 2100 years (700 BC- 1453 AD). The EU is about 20 years old. You can make a very nice society if you are willing to burn through social capital, but at the end of the day if you don’t take the measures necessary to keep society running, it will die.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  154. @Corvinus
    "What causes racial extinction? The failure of a race to reproduce itself."

    The white race is reproducing, perhaps not as fast or as vigorous as you would prefer. And while white population numbers may be lower, that does not necessarily mean the factors involved are attributed to some nefarious plot by elites to have this race become extinct.

    "This can happen because members of the race fail to have sufficient children or because they have too many children with members of other races."

    First, it is not up to you to demand that white men and women have "sufficient numbers of children". That is decision best left up to the couple. Second, there are those conservatives who lament about a lack of freedom of association. Well, those white men and women who marry and procreate with members from another race are exercising that liberty. Your personal shaming observably means little to them and is a definitive waste of energy and time on your part.

    "If either of these occurs for long enough, racial extinction must necessarily ensue."

    COULD ensue.

    "But if you extrapolate out from present trends, it’s hardly fanciful to imagine that in two or three hundred years whites will be effectively extinct – ie reduced to 1% or less of the population in their ancestral territories, with ongoing racial intermixture ensuring that even this pitiful remainder will not be permanently maintained."

    Not extinct. You are not even using the term correctly. Perhaps the white race could be significantly lower in 200-300 years, but the most important race is that of being human. Pro race is code for anti-humanity.

    "Whites today are in a situation in which too few whites are having children, and of those who are
    having children, too few are having them with other whites."

    You are absolutely consumed with something is essentially out of your control. People will make their own decisions regarding race and culture.

    "Unless this is reversed, whites will indeed go extinct."

    No, Chicken Little.

    "It will not happen within our lifetimes, but people who care about their racial existence understandably ask why it must be permitted to occur ever?"

    If white people are deathly concerned about this trend, they can form their own communities and sustain themselves in that manner.

    "What, really, is so offensive about the white desire to racially live on?"

    Again, you have that liberty. Feel free to live among people who are of the same mindset.

    "Is it that you and your offspring’s freedom or right to interact with white people might be somewhat (perhaps not completely) curtailed?"

    Is not what you are stating a violation of the covenant known as freedom of association? What about those white people who wish to continue their own interactions with non-whites, do they not have a voice in this matter?

    "This is so even when the whites in question strain to reassure the non-whites in question that they have no intention of “sending them home” or inconveniencing them beyond the minimum degree necessary to secure their own racial existence..."

    Except when the Alt Right clamors for "you must go back".

    "generally meaning that some parts of America or the world (but not all parts) must necessarily becomes off-limits to non-whites..."

    You mean your own private residence. But as far as designating an entire area or region, absolutely not. What world do you live in?

    First, it is not up to you to demand that white men and women have “sufficient numbers of children”. That is decision best left up to the couple.

    The requirements for ongoing racial existence are objective, not subjective. Whites today objectively – please reread, a thousand times if you have to, objectively – have fewer children than necessary to replace white numbers.

    Left unchecked, this trend must – no ifs, buts, or maybes – result in eventual racial extinction.

    It’s not up to me or you any one individual to determine the average number of children per couple necessary for racial survival. It’s simply a fact of racial reality.

    You are absolutely consumed with something is essentially out of your control. People will make their own decisions regarding race and culture.

    I am seeking to influence their behavior, not control it. Too many of them make such fateful life decisions on the basis of almost complete racial ignorance. I wish to reduce this knowledge deficit – you, on the other hand, may have other motives.

    If white people are deathly concerned about this trend, they can form their own communities and sustain themselves in that manner.

    That can only happen if they have the right to exclude racial outsiders from a given territory. Today, they do not have such rights. This needs to change.

    What about those white people who wish to continue their own interactions with non-whites, do they not have a voice in this matter?

    I think they should have a voice. Ideally, racial separation and preservation would be made available to those who want it; it would not be imposed on those who don’t.

    Except when the Alt Right clamors for “you must go back”.

    They are a troubling element, and I could not disagree with them more. I think they have their uses in terms of the Overton Window, however.

    You mean your own private residence. But as far as designating an entire area or region, absolutely not. What world do you live in?

    One in which I wish to see racial fools like you thoroughly vanquished. Vanquished so badly that no one for ten thousand years will ever take your deranged “anti-racist” swill seriously again.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Nice.

    Corvinus seeks to muddy the waters. I have no idea what motivates him, but I do know his tactics. He's not a honest participant.

    I may disagree (somewhat) with Twinkie, but he's honest and make sincere points.
    , @Corvinus
    "The requirements for ongoing racial existence are objective, not subjective. Whites today objectively – please reread, a thousand times if you have to, objectively – have fewer children than necessary to replace white numbers."

    No, people decide whether or not to have children objectively and subjectively. Factors include finances, level of maturity, and place in their life.

    "Left unchecked, this trend must – no ifs, buts, or maybes – result in eventual racial extinction."

    In the history of the world and humankind, white people have not remotely approached a critical extinction level. It is highly unlikely in the future, fifty years from now or 200 years from now, that the white population will be in the millions overall in the world primarily due to their own choices not to perpetuate itself.

    "It’s not up to me or you any one individual to determine the average number of children per couple necessary for racial survival. It’s simply a fact of racial reality."

    Human survival, not racial survival. The reality is that white people will continue to have children within or outside of their race, and the number of white people is more than likely to be in the hundreds of millions.

    "I am seeking to influence their behavior, not control it. Too many of them make such fateful life decisions on the basis of almost complete racial ignorance."

    You ASSUME that white people are ignorant when it comes to race. When you work to try to influence someone, you inevitably control them. You steer them in a direction YOU prefer they take.

    "That can only happen if they have the right to exclude racial outsiders from a given territory. Today, they do not have such rights. This needs to change."

    Again, white people today live in areas where there are almost exclusively white people. Move there. Moreover, for those few non-white people who reside in those areas, they have the liberty to stay there; for those white people who sell their house or rent to non-white people in that same area, they have the liberty to conduct this action.

    "One in which I wish to see racial fools like you thoroughly vanquished. Vanquished so badly that no one for ten thousand years will ever take your deranged “anti-racist” swill seriously again."

    Now wait a minute here. You just stated that you are trying to influence behavior, not control it. This statement contradicts your position. Furthermore, how do you propose to "vanquish" me and other white people whom you disagree with racially?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  155. @Yan Shen

    Among the intelligentsia, the nation-state finds few advocates.
     
    Isn't a belief in the primacy of the nation-state the mainstream view in East Asia? Of course we're talking about countries that are relatively sane as far as these sorts of matters go. America on the other hand is the land of invade the world, invite the world and all sorts of other insane PC nonsense.

    I've long been saying that in a country where blacks, Hispanics, and whites are increasingly tearing each other apart, the greatest thing that could ever happen is if a uh Lee Kuan Yew descended from the heavens to mete out some sense and discipline.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHhy2Gk_xik

    That chinese boy needs a little bit of humbling, naive kid because of kpop being big in the east and him probably getting some attention from the girls dont realise he is burning some bridges and destroying the goodwill that KPOP has given him from the ladies,I hope he realises soon those people he was berating are on the same side as him , and who the hell is lee kuan yew , brtshit descended people like him because he has an ugly low brow english accent and speaks well of him and publicisze him otherwise you would not have heard of his ugly ass.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  156. @Corvinus
    "What causes racial extinction? The failure of a race to reproduce itself."

    The white race is reproducing, perhaps not as fast or as vigorous as you would prefer. And while white population numbers may be lower, that does not necessarily mean the factors involved are attributed to some nefarious plot by elites to have this race become extinct.

    "This can happen because members of the race fail to have sufficient children or because they have too many children with members of other races."

    First, it is not up to you to demand that white men and women have "sufficient numbers of children". That is decision best left up to the couple. Second, there are those conservatives who lament about a lack of freedom of association. Well, those white men and women who marry and procreate with members from another race are exercising that liberty. Your personal shaming observably means little to them and is a definitive waste of energy and time on your part.

    "If either of these occurs for long enough, racial extinction must necessarily ensue."

    COULD ensue.

    "But if you extrapolate out from present trends, it’s hardly fanciful to imagine that in two or three hundred years whites will be effectively extinct – ie reduced to 1% or less of the population in their ancestral territories, with ongoing racial intermixture ensuring that even this pitiful remainder will not be permanently maintained."

    Not extinct. You are not even using the term correctly. Perhaps the white race could be significantly lower in 200-300 years, but the most important race is that of being human. Pro race is code for anti-humanity.

    "Whites today are in a situation in which too few whites are having children, and of those who are
    having children, too few are having them with other whites."

    You are absolutely consumed with something is essentially out of your control. People will make their own decisions regarding race and culture.

    "Unless this is reversed, whites will indeed go extinct."

    No, Chicken Little.

    "It will not happen within our lifetimes, but people who care about their racial existence understandably ask why it must be permitted to occur ever?"

    If white people are deathly concerned about this trend, they can form their own communities and sustain themselves in that manner.

    "What, really, is so offensive about the white desire to racially live on?"

    Again, you have that liberty. Feel free to live among people who are of the same mindset.

    "Is it that you and your offspring’s freedom or right to interact with white people might be somewhat (perhaps not completely) curtailed?"

    Is not what you are stating a violation of the covenant known as freedom of association? What about those white people who wish to continue their own interactions with non-whites, do they not have a voice in this matter?

    "This is so even when the whites in question strain to reassure the non-whites in question that they have no intention of “sending them home” or inconveniencing them beyond the minimum degree necessary to secure their own racial existence..."

    Except when the Alt Right clamors for "you must go back".

    "generally meaning that some parts of America or the world (but not all parts) must necessarily becomes off-limits to non-whites..."

    You mean your own private residence. But as far as designating an entire area or region, absolutely not. What world do you live in?

    Not extinct. You are not even using the term correctly. Perhaps the white race could be significantly lower in 200-300 years, but the most important race is that of being human. Pro race is code for anti-humanity.

    The Jews don’t believe that. I’m inclined to trust my coethnics on this one.

    As for your moral valuation does that mean if humanity speciates, it is okay for one branch to kill the other? When we get genetic engineering do the different tailored lines have different moral value?

    No, Chicken Little.

    It has actually happened before.

    http://250bpm.com/blog:113

    If white people are deathly concerned about this trend, they can form their own communities and sustain themselves in that manner.

    Which then get labeled racism and crushed.

    Is not what you are stating a violation of the covenant known as freedom of association? What about those white people who wish to continue their own interactions with non-whites, do they not have a voice in this matter?

    They can go live in countries with non-whites. It is up to the non-whites though; they aren’t pets who exist for your amusement.

    You mean your own private residence. But as far as designating an entire area or region, absolutely not. What world do you live in?

    Apparently we live in a world where words are useless and only the willingness to kill other human beings is a valid way to resolve differences.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  157. Corvinus says:

    “The Jews don’t believe that. I’m inclined to trust my coethnics on this one.”

    White people are not Jews.

    “It has actually happened before.”

    At a regional level with a particular group of people.

    “Which then get labeled racism and crushed.”

    So you play the victim card here rather than fight for the white way of life.

    “They can go live in countries with non-whites. It is up to the non-whites though; they aren’t pets who exist for your amusement.”

    Those whites who live amongst or shack up with are not going to move merely because you prefer that they live with their own kind. They have the liberty to stay there.

    “Apparently we live in a world where words are useless and only the willingness to kill other human beings is a valid way to resolve differences.”

    No, you have the option to move to areas where white people reside. Form your own communities.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner

    White people are not Jews.
     
    Yes, we happen to be smarter. Which is why I trust their judgement.

    At a regional level with a particular group of people.
     
    Fortunately we know that this cannot be replicated at a larger level because... what?

    So you play the victim card here rather than fight for the white way of life.
     
    You do realize if you fight against overwhelming force, you die? Like, there are no more Carthaginians because the Romans slaughtered them. One man is nothing against the weight of the state.

    Those whites who live amongst or shack up with are not going to move merely because you prefer that they live with their own kind. They have the liberty to stay there.
     
    You don't mean liberty, you mean license. Liberty is for free men, for citizens. License is the cry of the parasite who wishes to benefit from society without acting in order to maintain it.

    No, you have the option to move to areas where white people reside. Form your own communities.
     
    Nope. If you live in the US, HUD exists to dump a bunch of black people in your neighborhood. Specifically the blacks that poor blacks work to get away from. There are also refugee resettlement programs and the state takes an active interest in integration (re: screwing poor whites).
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  158. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Patriot
    Diaz, please learn to think. You say that 80% of wars were caused by nationalism, but in reality, 100% of wars have been caused by diversity (= differences); i.e., diversity in religion, race ethnicity, language, wealth, resources, politics, etc. Nationality is often a sum of many such differences.

    This is why diversity within a single society is so friggin dangerous. Diversity is almost never a strength, but a costly weakness. The happiest and most peaceful societies are often homogeneous, and have few differences (diverse aspects) to fight over.

    I find it hilarious that an unintelligent person such as yourself would tell me to learn how to think. Yes, wars are caused by diversity….of nations. The people that get into racial strife tend to be low clas and uneducated. Peo0ple of different races at Harvard are polite and civilized to each other. But let’s assume that you are right: that epople of different races just can’t get along. In that case, I would still prefer the end of natin-states because at least then we won’t need to deal with national militaries. I would rather have people fighting each other with sticks, stones and kitchen knives rather than opposing national militaries. After all, organized armies with military-grade weaponry kill a lot more people than the kind of racial clashes you see between skinheads and Black Panthers. So even if you were right, which you aren’t, my point about how terrible the nation-state is would still stand.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Samuel Skinner
    They managed to kill nearly a million people with knives in Rwanda. I'll stick to organized militaries and high tech weapons- at least you don't have to spend all your time worrying your neighbor is going to gut you when your back is turned.
    , @silviosilver

    Peo0ple of different races at Harvard are polite and civilized to each other.
     
    The sad thing is that, thanks to affirmative action, it's entirely possible that this "Nick Diaz" kid is/was at Harvard. (Entirely possible he's Latino too - he certainly has the classic Latino contempt for the lower social orders.) He is far from a moron, clearly, but Harvard material? Not by a long shot.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  159. @silviosilver

    First, it is not up to you to demand that white men and women have “sufficient numbers of children”. That is decision best left up to the couple.
     
    The requirements for ongoing racial existence are objective, not subjective. Whites today objectively - please reread, a thousand times if you have to, objectively - have fewer children than necessary to replace white numbers.

    Left unchecked, this trend must - no ifs, buts, or maybes - result in eventual racial extinction.

    It's not up to me or you any one individual to determine the average number of children per couple necessary for racial survival. It's simply a fact of racial reality.

    You are absolutely consumed with something is essentially out of your control. People will make their own decisions regarding race and culture.
     
    I am seeking to influence their behavior, not control it. Too many of them make such fateful life decisions on the basis of almost complete racial ignorance. I wish to reduce this knowledge deficit - you, on the other hand, may have other motives.

    If white people are deathly concerned about this trend, they can form their own communities and sustain themselves in that manner.
     
    That can only happen if they have the right to exclude racial outsiders from a given territory. Today, they do not have such rights. This needs to change.

    What about those white people who wish to continue their own interactions with non-whites, do they not have a voice in this matter?
     
    I think they should have a voice. Ideally, racial separation and preservation would be made available to those who want it; it would not be imposed on those who don't.

    Except when the Alt Right clamors for “you must go back”.
     
    They are a troubling element, and I could not disagree with them more. I think they have their uses in terms of the Overton Window, however.

    You mean your own private residence. But as far as designating an entire area or region, absolutely not. What world do you live in?
     
    One in which I wish to see racial fools like you thoroughly vanquished. Vanquished so badly that no one for ten thousand years will ever take your deranged "anti-racist" swill seriously again.

    Nice.

    Corvinus seeks to muddy the waters. I have no idea what motivates him, but I do know his tactics. He’s not a honest participant.

    I may disagree (somewhat) with Twinkie, but he’s honest and make sincere points.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    Corvinus seeks to muddy the waters. I have no idea what motivates him, but I do know his tactics. He’s not a honest participant.
     
    I've known that for a long time. I generally never respond to him, however this time I used opportunity to reemphasize a few points.

    I may disagree (somewhat) with Twinkie, but he’s honest and make sincere points.
     
    Who can ever know what lies inside anti-white hearts? It's the easiest thing in the world to come across as sincere and principled as you deny whites the rights to the vital living conditions necessary for long-term racial existence. I don't call Twinkie intentionally anti-white. I don't imagine he's out to hound and harass whites. Perhaps something inside him does feel a tinge of regret that whites shall, in due course, be wiped from the face of the earth. I mean, think of it, it is the sort of event that could induce such feelings: an entire branch of humankind, gone, never to be seen or heard again. Yet, when all is said and done, his answer remains a firm "no" - sorry, white man, can't help you.

    Perhaps there really is no hope. You could hardly fault someone for thinking so. After all, we live in a time when most whites eagerly heap misery after misery upon themselves, operating under the monumental delusion that it's beneficial and the right thing to do anyway. All important channels of communication are denied those who'd point out that it is a delusion. Requests that social arrangements be altered to allow whites to live on are treated as the very height of immorality, or at least are perceived as requiring such momentous upheaval that it's deemed too a high a price to pay. In the mean time, white numbers are dwindling, black numbers are soaring, with no end in sight. It's clearly tempting to throw the towel in and allow cruel fate to take its course.

    But then I pose this thought experiment. Imagine it's the year 2217, and China has had more than a century of sitting pretty at the top of the world. Alas, the Chinese have succumbed to "anti-racism" and allowed their homeland to be flooded with mass immigration. Race-mixing is rampant and there are fewer Chinese born with every passing year. Some far-sighted pro-Chinese activists point out that if these trends continue, the Chinese will vanish; and they propose certain measures that, if implemented, would allow Chinese people to live on. Now I ask myself, if I, as a non-Chinese, were living in China at that time, could I really bring myself to tell the Chinese, hell no, no way, what you are proposing is outrageously immoral? I just can't see that being my reaction. I think I would weigh up their proposal and realize that its implementation would not come at any truly essential cost to me - I wouldn't be deported, I'd be able to continue living under the Chinese legal and cultural regime that I know and value. All that would change is that there would now be certain parts of the land off-limits to me. To this, I could tell myself that I was never going to visit every single part of China anyway; that I already mentally block off certain parts of town that hold no interest for me and which I consequently never set foot in - so all that would change now is the reason why I never set foot in certain parts town/province/region whatever. "Ghastly" is virtually the last word I'd use to describe these changes. All told, I could see myself quite easily acquiescing to these requests.

    Obviously my point is that if I could acquiesce in that putative China, non-whites could acquiesce in contemporary America. The greatest difficulty here would be trust. Pro-whites, historically, are not known for seeking such reasonable accommodations. Their demands, on the contrary, have varied between "kill 'em all" and "send 'em all back." So it's quite understandable that non-whites would have a hard time trusting any white who disavowed such harsh measures. It's like "Yeah, you're saying that now, but if I give you your own territory, you're gonna use the time to organize and in twenty years you're gonna come gunning for me." We can see this effect in Israel. One reason Israelis have had such a hard time trusting the Palestinians is that the PLO for the longest time demanded the destruction of Israel. When the PLO changed its tune and claimed to be willing to settle for a two-state solution, very few Israelis believed they were sincere. (Of course, historically, it has been Israelis swindling Palestinians, not the other way around.) So while I think it is indeed possible that non-whites could acquiesce to pro-white racial reform - or even actively support it - there is a great deal of confidence-building that needs to take place first.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  160. Ian M. says:
    @Jason Liu
    I don't like the appeal to economics. The primary reason for nation-states is that it allows differentiation between peoples, thus creating hierarchy, tribalism and competition among humanity. This should be followed regardless of economics.

    The reason the far left screams about "No Borders" is because they fear conflict and thus want to drag us back to the communal, egalitarian muck. That sentiment fuels globalism on the ground. The capitalists who want globalism for greater profit are very few in comparison.

    I don’t like the appeal to economics. The primary reason for nation-states is that it allows differentiation between peoples, thus creating hierarchy, tribalism and competition among humanity. This should be followed regardless of economics.

    Agreed that economics should be subordinated to the nation. And even more importantly, to the family. We should be asking not which economic policies generate greater economic growth, but which economic policies support the stability and integrity of the nation and family.

    Regarding the primary reason you give for nation-states, the nation-state is not the only way to achieve differentiation among peoples, hierarchy, etc., and this was not the primary reason the nation-state developed. The nation-state is largely a late modern-age phenomenon, but this didn’t prevent the ancients and medievals and early moderns from still having differentiation and hierarchy. The early nation-state actually acted to flatten hierarchy and differentiation (it started off as a liberal project, after all).

    However, today nation-states are the primary way in which the world’s governments and peoples are organized. It is therefore one of our primary objects of loyalty and one of the sources of unity and authority for a people, so for that reason, we should work to maintain it.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  161. Ian M. says:
    @Yan Shen
    No, contrary to popular opinion here I'm not pushing for any particular immigrant group to take over the United States. Generally speaking I support the nation-state and consider myself a traditional nationalist. I think countries should exist first and foremost for the benefit of their own citizens. I don't think the United States particularly needs more immigrants, but if we are going to let people in, it might as well be based on a sane immigration policy favoring skilled immigrants. Various other countries such as Canada, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong, etc. have such immigration policies in place.

    Chinese Americans are something like 5 million out of the 320 million plus people in this country, so we're talking about barely more than 1.5% of the entire population, which seems pretty minimal to me. Even more so when you consider the large base population of over 1380 million from which this population is drawn from. This idea that Chinese Americans are overwhelming America may have something to do with the disproportionate impact that Chinese Americans have in this country in quantitative academic and STEM areas, more so than their actual underlying numbers, which as I've pointed out are fairly small.

    Since I live in the United States, I would rather not see the country turn to shit by virtue of blacks, Hispanics and whites basically tearing each other apart and lighting the entire thing on fire. So I've simply advocated for adopting some common sense and discipline that traditionally has tended to be embodied by our East Asian neighbors across the Pacific.

    I don’t think the United States particularly needs more immigrants, but if we are going to let people in, it might as well be based on a sane immigration policy favoring skilled immigrants.

    This isn’t clear to me. Yes, our nation gets more economic dynamism and less crime with skilled immigrants relative to unskilled immigrants. But which group will have a larger effect on our culture, on elite opinion, and on politics? The former. It’s not obvious to me that this trade-off would be a net relative benefit over an equivalent number of unskilled immigrants.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  162. @dearieme
    "the Ford Foundation professor of international political economy at the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. He was previously the Albert O Hirschman professor in the school of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton". American academic titles are approaching royal levels of complexity.

    Charles, Prince of Wales, Duke of Rothesay, Duke of Cornwall, Lord of the Isles, Blah, Blah, Blah, .....

    Haha funniest observation I’ve heard in a while

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  163. Ian M. says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    With all due respect to Steve (and Trump and Bannon), civic nationalism won't work over the long run. Defining a people/country with words instead of blood is too easily manipulated, especially if you a cohesive group within that society that has remarkable verbal skills and a desire to manipulate.

    As I've said many times, the nation-state is the best defense against exploitive elites for several reasons. First, an undivided people can pull together to overthrow their elites far more easily than a fractious, ethnically diverse population that must set aside their own issues first. Second, an elite that feels a familial connection with their people would be less likely to allow long-term damage to that population. (This second reason is far weaker than the first. History is replete with examples of elites screwing over their own kind to win short-term gains. Still, the chances of an elite with little to no genetic ties to the overall population does up the odds that the elite will allow bad things to happen to those people.)

    Btw, my suspicion is that Steve's civic nationalism have always been a triple bank shot form of ethnic/racial nationalism. If you have a country that's dominated by one group and you limit immigration, by default you allow that group to remain in control. It's ethnic nationalism in the guise of civic nationalism.

    Defining a people/country with words instead of blood is too easily manipulated, especially if you a cohesive group within that society that has remarkable verbal skills and a desire to manipulate.

    Defining a people by blood is just as much a reductionist error as is defining a people by words.

    In reality, both are needed. One needs a common history (“blood”), but also a common cult (“words”) to be a people. A group that is genetically related but that does not share the same underlying ideology will have no unity and will eventually separate into two or more peoples. Calls for ethnostates are thus misguided insofar as they make the principle source of unity biological race. Biological race is one source of unity, but it is not sufficient.

    As I’ve said many times, the nation-state is the best defense against exploitive elites for several reasons.

    But the nation-state has been terrible at defending us against exploitive elites. For one, it only lasted maybe a century or so as a major animating force. For two, the nation-state was invented in part precisely so that the exploitive elite could exploit better (or rather, so that a new, more exploitive elite could replace the old one). The nation-state was liberalism’s seminal attack against other competing and traditional sources of authority, such as the Church and more local attachments. Once these other sources of authority were substantially destroyed, liberalism no longer had any need for the nation-state and the liberal dialectic proceeded to turn on its own creation. Liberalism devours itself.

    Read More
    • Agree: Twinkie
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  164. Art Deco says:
    @Semper Fidelis

    Jews have never been at the bottom of the totem pole in America. Jews don’t need the stupid policies our elites have imposed on us to do well.

    If you could wave your magic wand and realize your wish, we would still have all the problems that we have now. Leftists are over-represented in the Children of Israel, but there are plenty of Leftists that are not.
     

    Jews certainly started out at the bottom of the totem pole when they first immigrated to the US. Many were poor and looked down upon by the WASPs. Harvard came up with the SAT to recruit rural and midwestern gentile kids, but when NY Jews started dominating the exam, they switched to holistic admission to limit enrollment by the Jewish "greasy grinds", but they still allowed at least 15% in each year.

    Jews are incredibly tribal. As those who graduated from the Ivy League began to break into the media, academia, Wall Street, Hollywood, the law profession, the deep state, the DNC, the GOP through the neocons, Silicon Valley, they stick to hiring and funding their own tribe to the point where they now dominate all these institutions.

    By far the worst thing conservatives ever did was allowing the Jews to take over academia. First they took over all the universities, mostly in the liberal arts dept, from there they indoctrinated all the future journalists who went on to dominate mainstream media and browbeat/intimidated all gentile elites into submission, future lawyers who went on to dominate the judiciary bench and interpret laws as they see fit, future politicians and deep state employees who turned the deep state deeply blue, and most importantly, future teachers, who went on to indoctrinate all our kids K-12.

    Jews are incredibly tribal. A

    Most nowadays intermarry and have no religious affiliation. The most inclined toward endogamy and fertility are Orthodox Jews who are the least ambitious segment of the Jewish populaiton.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  165. Art Deco says:
    @Peter Lund
    If India is a country then so is the EU. If the EU isn't a country then India isn't one either.

    In European history, there is no Raj. The closest thing to that might be Rome. There have been several in India’s history. India has a distinctive religion and set of social relations not replicated elsewhere. Europe hasn’t had that in 500 years. India has also managed to hold together under a single government for 70 years. Not a nation, but an association with the potential to develop into a nation.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  166. Ian M. says:
    @Patriot
    Over the past thousands of of years, tens of thousands of societies struggled to create a perfect
    Society -- one that achieved relatively high security, stability, health, well being, justice and civil rights under the law, fantastic upwads opportunity, great wealth and infrastructure, wide middle class, freedom of religion, and high standard of living.

    The USA did that. 10,000 years of history in 10,000 places, and the USA was the best!

    Of a million previous and concurrent societies, America was #1. Humans had finally found the correct combination of factors to produce a utopian society (or as close to it as anyone else had ever done).

    Then a (((group))) of ungrateful, selfish, clannish, highly intelligent immigrants set about to dismantal this Shining city on hill, thas paragon and exemplar of near perfection, for their own selfish and evil reasons.

    My Daddy always said, "If it works, don't fix it." America worked better than any nation that ever existed, and ((they)) had to "change" it. Ungrateful, evil, mnipuative a$$$$$s.

    America worked better than any nation that ever existed, and ((they)) had to “change” it.

    No it didn’t.

    “((They))” – wait, isn’t it supposed to be three sets of parentheses? – didn’t change it. They simply helped push it along its logical trajectory toward its ultimate destruction, the seeds of which were sown at its very founding.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  167. @Corvinus
    "The Jews don’t believe that. I’m inclined to trust my coethnics on this one."

    White people are not Jews.

    "It has actually happened before."

    At a regional level with a particular group of people.

    "Which then get labeled racism and crushed."

    So you play the victim card here rather than fight for the white way of life.

    "They can go live in countries with non-whites. It is up to the non-whites though; they aren’t pets who exist for your amusement."

    Those whites who live amongst or shack up with are not going to move merely because you prefer that they live with their own kind. They have the liberty to stay there.

    "Apparently we live in a world where words are useless and only the willingness to kill other human beings is a valid way to resolve differences."

    No, you have the option to move to areas where white people reside. Form your own communities.

    White people are not Jews.

    Yes, we happen to be smarter. Which is why I trust their judgement.

    At a regional level with a particular group of people.

    Fortunately we know that this cannot be replicated at a larger level because… what?

    So you play the victim card here rather than fight for the white way of life.

    You do realize if you fight against overwhelming force, you die? Like, there are no more Carthaginians because the Romans slaughtered them. One man is nothing against the weight of the state.

    Those whites who live amongst or shack up with are not going to move merely because you prefer that they live with their own kind. They have the liberty to stay there.

    You don’t mean liberty, you mean license. Liberty is for free men, for citizens. License is the cry of the parasite who wishes to benefit from society without acting in order to maintain it.

    No, you have the option to move to areas where white people reside. Form your own communities.

    Nope. If you live in the US, HUD exists to dump a bunch of black people in your neighborhood. Specifically the blacks that poor blacks work to get away from. There are also refugee resettlement programs and the state takes an active interest in integration (re: screwing poor whites).

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Yes, we happen to be smarter. Which is why I trust their judgement."

    You THINK you are smarter.

    "You don’t mean liberty, you mean license. Liberty is for free men, for citizens. License is the cry of the parasite who wishes to benefit from society without acting in order to maintain it."

    No, I meant liberty. I used it in the proper context.

    "Nope. If you live in the US, HUD exists to dump a bunch of black people in your neighborhood."

    That's not how it works. Go back to bed and sleep it off.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  168. @Anonymous
    I find it hilarious that an unintelligent person such as yourself would tell me to learn how to think. Yes, wars are caused by diversity....of nations. The people that get into racial strife tend to be low clas and uneducated. Peo0ple of different races at Harvard are polite and civilized to each other. But let's assume that you are right: that epople of different races just can't get along. In that case, I would still prefer the end of natin-states because at least then we won't need to deal with national militaries. I would rather have people fighting each other with sticks, stones and kitchen knives rather than opposing national militaries. After all, organized armies with military-grade weaponry kill a lot more people than the kind of racial clashes you see between skinheads and Black Panthers. So even if you were right, which you aren't, my point about how terrible the nation-state is would still stand.

    They managed to kill nearly a million people with knives in Rwanda. I’ll stick to organized militaries and high tech weapons- at least you don’t have to spend all your time worrying your neighbor is going to gut you when your back is turned.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  169. eah says:
    @eah
    OT

    Gift ideas for Christmas! The #ChristmasMarket "Germany 2017" Edition: with 24 terror concrete blocks!

    Es muss echt und aktuelle sein, oder? -- die Kinder verlangen das.

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DQHncemU8AE28m-.jpg
    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  170. Corvinus says:
    @silviosilver

    First, it is not up to you to demand that white men and women have “sufficient numbers of children”. That is decision best left up to the couple.
     
    The requirements for ongoing racial existence are objective, not subjective. Whites today objectively - please reread, a thousand times if you have to, objectively - have fewer children than necessary to replace white numbers.

    Left unchecked, this trend must - no ifs, buts, or maybes - result in eventual racial extinction.

    It's not up to me or you any one individual to determine the average number of children per couple necessary for racial survival. It's simply a fact of racial reality.

    You are absolutely consumed with something is essentially out of your control. People will make their own decisions regarding race and culture.
     
    I am seeking to influence their behavior, not control it. Too many of them make such fateful life decisions on the basis of almost complete racial ignorance. I wish to reduce this knowledge deficit - you, on the other hand, may have other motives.

    If white people are deathly concerned about this trend, they can form their own communities and sustain themselves in that manner.
     
    That can only happen if they have the right to exclude racial outsiders from a given territory. Today, they do not have such rights. This needs to change.

    What about those white people who wish to continue their own interactions with non-whites, do they not have a voice in this matter?
     
    I think they should have a voice. Ideally, racial separation and preservation would be made available to those who want it; it would not be imposed on those who don't.

    Except when the Alt Right clamors for “you must go back”.
     
    They are a troubling element, and I could not disagree with them more. I think they have their uses in terms of the Overton Window, however.

    You mean your own private residence. But as far as designating an entire area or region, absolutely not. What world do you live in?
     
    One in which I wish to see racial fools like you thoroughly vanquished. Vanquished so badly that no one for ten thousand years will ever take your deranged "anti-racist" swill seriously again.

    “The requirements for ongoing racial existence are objective, not subjective. Whites today objectively – please reread, a thousand times if you have to, objectively – have fewer children than necessary to replace white numbers.”

    No, people decide whether or not to have children objectively and subjectively. Factors include finances, level of maturity, and place in their life.

    “Left unchecked, this trend must – no ifs, buts, or maybes – result in eventual racial extinction.”

    In the history of the world and humankind, white people have not remotely approached a critical extinction level. It is highly unlikely in the future, fifty years from now or 200 years from now, that the white population will be in the millions overall in the world primarily due to their own choices not to perpetuate itself.

    “It’s not up to me or you any one individual to determine the average number of children per couple necessary for racial survival. It’s simply a fact of racial reality.”

    Human survival, not racial survival. The reality is that white people will continue to have children within or outside of their race, and the number of white people is more than likely to be in the hundreds of millions.

    “I am seeking to influence their behavior, not control it. Too many of them make such fateful life decisions on the basis of almost complete racial ignorance.”

    You ASSUME that white people are ignorant when it comes to race. When you work to try to influence someone, you inevitably control them. You steer them in a direction YOU prefer they take.

    “That can only happen if they have the right to exclude racial outsiders from a given territory. Today, they do not have such rights. This needs to change.”

    Again, white people today live in areas where there are almost exclusively white people. Move there. Moreover, for those few non-white people who reside in those areas, they have the liberty to stay there; for those white people who sell their house or rent to non-white people in that same area, they have the liberty to conduct this action.

    “One in which I wish to see racial fools like you thoroughly vanquished. Vanquished so badly that no one for ten thousand years will ever take your deranged “anti-racist” swill seriously again.”

    Now wait a minute here. You just stated that you are trying to influence behavior, not control it. This statement contradicts your position. Furthermore, how do you propose to “vanquish” me and other white people whom you disagree with racially?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  171. @silviosilver

    People respond negatively to racial sorting proposals for two main reasons.
     
    I should have mentioned a third reason, which is definitely real, but often only crops up after the issue is given greater consideration. (The other two reasons tend to be more kneejerk reactions rather than carefully considered rejections.) This reason is people's aversion to racial supremacism and feelings of racial inferiority.

    In any discussion of racial sorting proposals - particularly lowbrow discussions - it doesn't take long before certain participants begin to advance reasons for excluding certain groups on the basis of the racial revulsion they have for them. These participants cite reasons like some racial features - these noses or those lips or those eyelids or what have you - are not only "certain signs" of non-white admixture, but are disgusting in their own right - something that no self-respecting white man should wish to inflict on his group. Personal appearances are a matter of great emotional importance to most people, so as soon as offence is taken these participants either bow out or return fire, and the whole discussion quickly degenerates into a series of racial insults.

    I don't think personal insults are the only reason these discussions disturb people, though. If the question of racial identity becomes too closely attached to issues of personal status, then it's clear that some Italian or Greek (to cite two typical punching bags) is going to resist having his status degraded to the point where some trailer park dweller can feel superior to him because his features are whiter. So if political pro-white racialism threatens to erect a social structure where such a thing seems likely or possible, these prospective pro-whites will distance themselves from the movement.

    Furthermore, once social status becomes the central point, no one wants to be low man on the totem pole, so you often find some pro-whites campaigning for the inclusion of people just a little less white than themselves, so it's not all one-way anti-southern-European traffic. By this point, however, the discussion has lost virtually all serious, considerate participants.

    As juvenile as all this is, it's nonetheless still a significant hurdle when it comes to organizing a pro-white movement.

    “…some Italian or Greek (to cite two typical punching bags) is going to resist having his status degraded to the point where some trailer park dweller… Italians/Greeks are whites.” No will one will degrade their status. You’re spewing nonsense. Nick Rahall a former politician from West Virginia was 1/2 Lebanese. No one questioned his racial acceptance. Ted Kennedy’s widow Victoria Reggie is Lebanese and from Louisiana. No one questioned her ethnicity. On the other hand, Bobby Jindal is definitely not kosher. Neither was Obama. Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, et al.) are anti white. If they are 1/2 white, most of the time they will side with their Asian side. Derbyshire’s Chinese offspring are an example. Obama dated a 1/2 Japanese, 1/2 Dutch woman who wound up marrying a Korean. Families naturally separate. Hispanics can be of any race, and they separate themselves. Todd Palin’s great grandmother was an Eskimo, but he is not an Eskimo. Jews would be separated. They are not white and are anti-white. Separation is quite easy.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    I am talking about viewpoints that are expressed in these discussions on the internet, not what occurs in daily life. Most people in everyday life do not express anything like such viewpoints. If you think I am spouting nonsense, you clearly cannot have participated in may of these discussions, else you would know what I said was an accurate reflection of what goes on.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  172. @Citizen of a Silly Country
    Nice.

    Corvinus seeks to muddy the waters. I have no idea what motivates him, but I do know his tactics. He's not a honest participant.

    I may disagree (somewhat) with Twinkie, but he's honest and make sincere points.

    Corvinus seeks to muddy the waters. I have no idea what motivates him, but I do know his tactics. He’s not a honest participant.

    I’ve known that for a long time. I generally never respond to him, however this time I used opportunity to reemphasize a few points.

    I may disagree (somewhat) with Twinkie, but he’s honest and make sincere points.

    Who can ever know what lies inside anti-white hearts? It’s the easiest thing in the world to come across as sincere and principled as you deny whites the rights to the vital living conditions necessary for long-term racial existence. I don’t call Twinkie intentionally anti-white. I don’t imagine he’s out to hound and harass whites. Perhaps something inside him does feel a tinge of regret that whites shall, in due course, be wiped from the face of the earth. I mean, think of it, it is the sort of event that could induce such feelings: an entire branch of humankind, gone, never to be seen or heard again. Yet, when all is said and done, his answer remains a firm “no” – sorry, white man, can’t help you.

    Perhaps there really is no hope. You could hardly fault someone for thinking so. After all, we live in a time when most whites eagerly heap misery after misery upon themselves, operating under the monumental delusion that it’s beneficial and the right thing to do anyway. All important channels of communication are denied those who’d point out that it is a delusion. Requests that social arrangements be altered to allow whites to live on are treated as the very height of immorality, or at least are perceived as requiring such momentous upheaval that it’s deemed too a high a price to pay. In the mean time, white numbers are dwindling, black numbers are soaring, with no end in sight. It’s clearly tempting to throw the towel in and allow cruel fate to take its course.

    But then I pose this thought experiment. Imagine it’s the year 2217, and China has had more than a century of sitting pretty at the top of the world. Alas, the Chinese have succumbed to “anti-racism” and allowed their homeland to be flooded with mass immigration. Race-mixing is rampant and there are fewer Chinese born with every passing year. Some far-sighted pro-Chinese activists point out that if these trends continue, the Chinese will vanish; and they propose certain measures that, if implemented, would allow Chinese people to live on. Now I ask myself, if I, as a non-Chinese, were living in China at that time, could I really bring myself to tell the Chinese, hell no, no way, what you are proposing is outrageously immoral? I just can’t see that being my reaction. I think I would weigh up their proposal and realize that its implementation would not come at any truly essential cost to me – I wouldn’t be deported, I’d be able to continue living under the Chinese legal and cultural regime that I know and value. All that would change is that there would now be certain parts of the land off-limits to me. To this, I could tell myself that I was never going to visit every single part of China anyway; that I already mentally block off certain parts of town that hold no interest for me and which I consequently never set foot in – so all that would change now is the reason why I never set foot in certain parts town/province/region whatever. “Ghastly” is virtually the last word I’d use to describe these changes. All told, I could see myself quite easily acquiescing to these requests.

    Obviously my point is that if I could acquiesce in that putative China, non-whites could acquiesce in contemporary America. The greatest difficulty here would be trust. Pro-whites, historically, are not known for seeking such reasonable accommodations. Their demands, on the contrary, have varied between “kill ‘em all” and “send ‘em all back.” So it’s quite understandable that non-whites would have a hard time trusting any white who disavowed such harsh measures. It’s like “Yeah, you’re saying that now, but if I give you your own territory, you’re gonna use the time to organize and in twenty years you’re gonna come gunning for me.” We can see this effect in Israel. One reason Israelis have had such a hard time trusting the Palestinians is that the PLO for the longest time demanded the destruction of Israel. When the PLO changed its tune and claimed to be willing to settle for a two-state solution, very few Israelis believed they were sincere. (Of course, historically, it has been Israelis swindling Palestinians, not the other way around.) So while I think it is indeed possible that non-whites could acquiesce to pro-white racial reform – or even actively support it – there is a great deal of confidence-building that needs to take place first.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Corvinus
    "Who can ever know what lies inside anti-white hearts? It’s the easiest thing in the world to come across as sincere and principled as you deny whites the rights to the vital living conditions necessary for long-term racial existence."

    You continue to argue from the false premises that 1) there are systemic, systematic efforts by groups of people to wipe out the white race; 2) white people who neglect to realize that they are in mortal danger of their racial existence are contributing to their racial demise, and 3) certain white people are being denied the liberty to live how they prefer to live, chiefly among their "own kind".
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  173. @Anonymous
    I find it hilarious that an unintelligent person such as yourself would tell me to learn how to think. Yes, wars are caused by diversity....of nations. The people that get into racial strife tend to be low clas and uneducated. Peo0ple of different races at Harvard are polite and civilized to each other. But let's assume that you are right: that epople of different races just can't get along. In that case, I would still prefer the end of natin-states because at least then we won't need to deal with national militaries. I would rather have people fighting each other with sticks, stones and kitchen knives rather than opposing national militaries. After all, organized armies with military-grade weaponry kill a lot more people than the kind of racial clashes you see between skinheads and Black Panthers. So even if you were right, which you aren't, my point about how terrible the nation-state is would still stand.

    Peo0ple of different races at Harvard are polite and civilized to each other.

    The sad thing is that, thanks to affirmative action, it’s entirely possible that this “Nick Diaz” kid is/was at Harvard. (Entirely possible he’s Latino too – he certainly has the classic Latino contempt for the lower social orders.) He is far from a moron, clearly, but Harvard material? Not by a long shot.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Nick Diaz
    LOL, being shown spite from a lowly life form such as yourself is amusing to me. My dad went to Harvard. I was accepted into Harvard, but chose to study chemical engineering at a top university instead. I earned my masters in chemical engineering before turning 22. What about you? You probably have barely a high school level of education - judging from your posts. The reason for your anger is simply because you cannot refute anything that I wrote. Resorting to ad hominem invective is the last refuge of a coward.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  174. Twinkie says:
    @silviosilver
    My suspicion was that you were willfully evading addressing Citizen of a Silly Country's racial concerns (by talking about cultural concerns). If this was not done willfully, then I retract the accusation. But the point does indeed remain that you were not addressing his concerns.

    Second, people of European origins are not about to go extinct.
     
    What causes racial extinction? The failure of a race to reproduce itself. This can happen because members of the race fail to have sufficient children or because they have too many children with members of other races. If either of these occurs for long enough, racial extinction must necessarily ensue. Whether your statement above can be deemed reasonable or not depends on what time frame your use of "about" implies. If you mean in the next ten years, no clearly not. Not even in the next hundred. But if you extrapolate out from present trends, it's hardly fanciful to imagine that in two or three hundred years whites will be effectively extinct - ie reduced to 1% or less of the population in their ancestral territories, with ongoing racial intermixture ensuring that even this pitiful remainder will not be permanently maintained. If you want to argue that at some future point some intervention will become possible that would allow whites to avoid complete racial extinction, my question must be why wait until then? And if, as you hint, it's already "too late" to do anything to secure white racial existence, then it's difficult to see how or why this should suddenly become easier in the future.

    Whites today are in a situation in which too few whites are having children, and of those who are having children, too few are having them with other whites. Unless this is reversed, whites will indeed go extinct. It will not happen within our lifetimes, but people who care about their racial existence understandably ask why it must be permitted to occur ever? Why must it be permitted to occur if preventing it would not necessarily compromise or jeopardize any other group's vital racial or cultural interests?

    What, really, is so offensive about the white desire to racially live on? Is it that you and your offspring's freedom or right to interact with white people might be somewhat (perhaps not completely) curtailed? This would not be an uncommon reaction. In fact, outrage by non-whites that their lives might be inconvenienced by whites deciding to live on rather than die off, replete with thunderous denunciations of the alleged "racism" behind this motivation, is probably the most common reaction. This is so even when the whites in question strain to reassure the non-whites in question that they have no intention of "sending them home" or inconveniencing them beyond the minimum degree necessary to secure their own racial existence - generally meaning that some parts of America or the world (but not all parts) must necessarily becomes off-limits to non-whites, just as some parts would become off-limits to whites and other non-whites - that anything and everything that can be done and that is consistent with the accomplishment of this goal and with the minimization of disruption to non-white well-being, including the provision of compensation where that disruption exceeds some level, should be done. Such assurances do strangely little to quench the outrage.

    I am much more concerned about preserving my country – which is an actual tangible, physical entity – and its traditional institutions and culture, in other words its civilization
     
    Those things are virtually the anti-thesis of "tangible" and "physical." If lost, they can be resurrected in a way that a race - which is actually physical and tangible - cannot be.

    Finally, my concern is largely about my nation-state – the United States of America and her people as constituted today (the current “shareholders” of the country, to borrow Mr. Sailer’s metaphor).
     
    Then you are shit out of luck. Because the policies and trends already in place guarantee that the United States of America as constituted today will not be so constituted tomorrow, and will be even less and less so with each passing year.

    Whether your statement above can be deemed reasonable or not depends on what time frame your use of “about” implies. If you mean in the next ten years, no clearly not. Not even in the next hundred. But if you extrapolate out from present trends, it’s hardly fanciful to imagine that in two or three hundred years whites will be effectively extinct – ie reduced to 1% or less of the population in their ancestral territories

    You are veering into science fiction territory here. As I mentioned before, predicting demographic trends 50 years out from the current trajectory is likely to be HIGHLY faulty and inaccurate, to say the least. Predicting it three hundred years into the future is fanciful, to put kindly, and quite insane, to be ungenerous.

    Those things are virtually the anti-thesis of “tangible” and “physical.”

    The United States of America, a nation-state that actually exists today within the boundaries of geography and which contains a specific group of people some 300 million plus, is not tangible and physical?

    I am beginning to see that your alleged suspicion of my supposed dishonesty is projection. You seem determined to twist my words and attach meanings to them that you’d like to attribute to a straw man.

    If lost, they can be resurrected in a way that a race – which is actually physical and tangible – cannot be.

    First of all, history tells us that once a polity is broken or erased, it very rarely, if ever, comes back. Second, your conception of race – people as a snapshot, frozen in time and place – is simply inaccurate. By your own argument, the boundaries of a race are constantly changing. Of course, being a real phenomenon, it can be altered drastically or killed, but it, being a living phenomenon, is also capable of tolerating changes at the margins.

    By the way (and this is a very minor side point), from a purely genetic sense, a race certainly can be “resurrected” by selective breeding, provided there are descendants, however “corrupted.” How do you think the Japanese restored the original Akita-inu as a breed?

    What, really, is so offensive about the white desire to racially live on? Is it that you and your offspring’s freedom or right to interact with white people might be somewhat (perhaps not completely) curtailed?

    This becomes a nonsensical question once you falsify the science fiction notion that the white race is heading toward extinction.

    In real life, cultures change much faster and more dramatically than races do (just look at the past fifty years of America). As such, I am far more concerned about the degradation of our culture, which presents a far more direct and immediate threat to the existence of the United States than the very remote and unlikely possibility that white people are going to die out.

    By the way, my wife is white and my children are half-white. Their children, my future grand children, will likely be three-quarters white. Preventing me from interacting with these people I love is not a minor inconvenience. It is fate worse than death, and I will react very violently to those who propose to separate me from them. Thankfully, many others will stand with me.

    Read More
    • Replies: @attilathehen
    "By the way, my wife is white and my children are half-white. Their children, my future grand children, will likely be three-quarters white." Or they will most likely be Asian or black. You cannot tell your non-white children to marry whites. You are a Japanese Derbyshire.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  175. Twinkie says:
    @silviosilver

    My friends opposed and still oppose the ANC rule in South Africa, but they also think that Apartheid was neither sustainable nor just.
     
    Then your friends are fools, for it was neither unsustainable nor unjust.

    Unless whites in S. Africa are able to to secure recognition that some parts of S. Africa (however small or insignificant) are theirs and theirs alone to inhabit, in the fullness of time, complete negrification is bound to occur.

    In a hundred years our planet's black population will have grown to some four billion. It cannot be assumed that Africa will contain them all. The desire to avoid negrification is probably the most compelling argument I can make for racial separatism. It is something that all non-black groups should be able to understand the benefit of, with some smaller portion of the members of each such group also understanding the long-term necessity of it, if negrification is to be permanently avoided.

    I urge and beg you to ponder this.

    Then your friends are fools, for it was neither unsustainable nor unjust.

    You are something. First, you claim to predict the demography three hundred years into the future with considerable conviction. Now, you insult my friends who actually grew up and lived through the turbulence of RSA and, in your great wisdom, claim to know more about the Apartheid than these “fools” as you called them.

    I think we are done.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    I think we are done.
     
    I think you are just looking for excuses to bow out of a debate you can't hold your own in.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  176. Twinkie says:
    @Citizen of a Silly Country
    What silviosilver said.

    But I'll add my own comments.

    And even with high-assimilation groups, numbers – as Mr. Derbyshire would say – is of paramount importance. Too many immigrants of any stripe are liable to slow assimilation (which is why I support immigration restriction, both legal or otherwise, given the currently rather high percentage of foreign-born population, among whom I am one).
     
    You can't have a steady stream of different races into a country dominated by another race and expect the latter race to survive, especially once the latter race's % of the population drops below 80% to 90%. At that point, you would have to stop all immigration immediately. Even then, the high-assimilation groups would eventually merge with the original race to create a new race. The original race would cease to exist like MP's parrot.

    It would be a peaceful demise, but a death all the same.


    What then, should be the answer? Full on race war? Racial separation? Or work through political and social forces to recapture (or rebuild) some of the institutions and re-enact immigration restriction and assimilation? Which is more likely to succeed? Which is less likely to cause suffering?

     

    See my answer to Charles something II somewhere around here. No. No race war. The best hope for whites is to act like Jews. (Of course, American Jews intermarry a lot, so maybe there is no hope.) Create European American groups and bit by bit carve out a place for ourselves within our coming Brazil of the North society.

    For a people to survive they simply must exclude other peoples. The Japanese and Israelis understand this, but, then, they are adults.

    If you let your mind go where it the logic leads you, you will see that there is a very harsh reality to surviving as a people. I don't think that even around here most of the people are willing to follow that logic to its conclusion. I can assure you that it's not a pleasant experience and one that I resisted for a long time. And I'm still not emotionally comfortable with it.

    expect the latter race to survive, especially once the latter race’s % of the population drops below 80% to 90%. At that point, you would have to stop all immigration immediately. Even then, the high-assimilation groups would eventually merge with the original race to create a new race. The original race would cease to exist like MP’s parrot.

    Let me ask you something. What is your definition of a white person? Someone with 99% European genetics? How about 75%?

    For a people to survive they simply must exclude other peoples. The Japanese and Israelis understand this, but, then, they are adults.

    Both of these groups of people are genetic hybrids, with the Israelis having comparatively VERY HIGH genetic diversity. What bind these respective peoples together as unitary nations are things such as common descent (not the same as genetic propinquity), shared history (very short in the case of Israel), and constructed self-conception as a people (“ideology” if you will).

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    with the Israelis having comparatively VERY HIGH genetic diversity.
     
    Exactly. You walk down the smallest Israeli town and it's hard to know what country you're in, what with all those Chinese, Indians, Mestizos and Africans everywhere, so VERY HIGH is Israel's diversity.

    Kidding aside, the point is generally correct that Israel could not convincingly be described as a monoracial country, at least not in the same sense as historically monoracial countries could have been called monoracial. (Eg Britain, Nigeria, Korea). But even though there are some considerable differences, the great bulk of the population could be described as a mixture of white and west asian, quite closely resembling the populations of, say, Armenia and Georgia. Only the existence of Ethiopian Jews shatters this picture of relative racial uniformity.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  177. @Twinkie

    Whether your statement above can be deemed reasonable or not depends on what time frame your use of “about” implies. If you mean in the next ten years, no clearly not. Not even in the next hundred. But if you extrapolate out from present trends, it’s hardly fanciful to imagine that in two or three hundred years whites will be effectively extinct – ie reduced to 1% or less of the population in their ancestral territories
     
    You are veering into science fiction territory here. As I mentioned before, predicting demographic trends 50 years out from the current trajectory is likely to be HIGHLY faulty and inaccurate, to say the least. Predicting it three hundred years into the future is fanciful, to put kindly, and quite insane, to be ungenerous.

    Those things are virtually the anti-thesis of “tangible” and “physical.”
     
    The United States of America, a nation-state that actually exists today within the boundaries of geography and which contains a specific group of people some 300 million plus, is not tangible and physical?

    I am beginning to see that your alleged suspicion of my supposed dishonesty is projection. You seem determined to twist my words and attach meanings to them that you'd like to attribute to a straw man.

    If lost, they can be resurrected in a way that a race – which is actually physical and tangible – cannot be.
     
    First of all, history tells us that once a polity is broken or erased, it very rarely, if ever, comes back. Second, your conception of race - people as a snapshot, frozen in time and place - is simply inaccurate. By your own argument, the boundaries of a race are constantly changing. Of course, being a real phenomenon, it can be altered drastically or killed, but it, being a living phenomenon, is also capable of tolerating changes at the margins.

    By the way (and this is a very minor side point), from a purely genetic sense, a race certainly can be "resurrected" by selective breeding, provided there are descendants, however "corrupted." How do you think the Japanese restored the original Akita-inu as a breed?

    What, really, is so offensive about the white desire to racially live on? Is it that you and your offspring’s freedom or right to interact with white people might be somewhat (perhaps not completely) curtailed?
     
    This becomes a nonsensical question once you falsify the science fiction notion that the white race is heading toward extinction.

    In real life, cultures change much faster and more dramatically than races do (just look at the past fifty years of America). As such, I am far more concerned about the degradation of our culture, which presents a far more direct and immediate threat to the existence of the United States than the very remote and unlikely possibility that white people are going to die out.

    By the way, my wife is white and my children are half-white. Their children, my future grand children, will likely be three-quarters white. Preventing me from interacting with these people I love is not a minor inconvenience. It is fate worse than death, and I will react very violently to those who propose to separate me from them. Thankfully, many others will stand with me.

    “By the way, my wife is white and my children are half-white. Their children, my future grand children, will likely be three-quarters white.” Or they will most likely be Asian or black. You cannot tell your non-white children to marry whites. You are a Japanese Derbyshire.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie

    Or they will most likely be Asian or black. You cannot tell your non-white children to marry whites.
     
    But *you* can predict that *my* children - whom you have never met - will marry "Asian" or "black." So I don't know my kids, but you do. I can't tell whether you are dumb or crazy.

    First of all, people of my ethnicity born in America marry whites at rates between 50-70%. And that's people who are entirely of my ethnicity. My children are only half that. The other half is white.

    Second, half-white/half-Asian Americans tend to identify as whites and marry them.

    Third, among my children, only my oldest (he is a boy) is allowed to date. His girlfriend is a gorgeous blonde. They've known each other since they were seven. They played house, and went through First Communion and Confirmation together. My wife and I know the family very well. He'll probably marry her one day. He told me so since he was nine, and - adorably - has been saving for a "starter home" for the two of them since then.

    Unlike some of you malcontents who grasp at online straws with this white nationalism fantasy, my family and I belong to a real, actual, functioning community of people who belong to the same parish, educate our children together, share similar moral values, and are close friends. We derive much of our sense of identity from these communitarian ties and pleasures of friendship, rather than some outlandish notion that separating people by race is going to magically solve what ails the country and its population.

    You are a Japanese Derbyshire.
     
    Er, no. Derbyshire doesn't believe in God and certainly doesn't attend church. I am a traditional Catholic who homeschools his children in Christian ethics and Western canon. And I never wrote that I was Japanese.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  178. Bill B. says:
    @Dieter Kief

    open global economy, but also our liberal, democratic order swept away by the backlash wrought by the blind spots and excesses of this mindset
     
    Ok - there are blind spots and excesses of the internationalist open border mindset. That's a point to start a reasonable discussion from.

    Then there has always been Isiah Berlin as a proponent of the antion-state. Very stange, what happened to him.

    Thilo Sarrazin, the fondest - (European !?) critic of Dani Radrik's "blind spots" and "excesses" of internationalism has two main points.

    1) Not everybody fits in quite nicely everywhere (that one is against unregulated migration).


    2) Some developed countries might have reached the point, where gains in lower prices for goods and services via international markets are now countered by rising costs for unemployment, because of all the factories and services, that keep being shifted to places where they are cheaper than - at home.
    This one is is a against unregulated trade, basically and hints at import-taxes and such measures Trump is speaking abut too, here and there).

    Pity Sarrazin isn’t published in English.

    I read a paper that I cannot at this moment put my hands on that, as well as pointing out that globalization is increasingly proving not beneficial to Western populations, elites aside, noted that in a globalized, loose-border world there is every reason to suppose that the majority of developed nation populations will not gain much either.

    There is no market god to distribute the wealth creation evenly and that when the “country” is the whole world selected places will do well and other places will be ignored. So hypothetically a Thailand may be a quite engaged second/third tier participant in glob-world but Myanmar/wherever may be trailing because (resources aside) glob-world finds other places more convenient.

    And by extension even a “successful” place like Thailand will not rise up evenly but will forever be a half-developed place.

    Borders are useful. Especially if behind those borders are governments with the sincere long-term interests of their own populations at heart.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief

    Borders are useful. Especially if behind those borders are governments with the sincere long-term interests of their own populations at heart.
     
    I have the idea that Japan could be one of those governments.
    Helmut Schmidt - who the longer he lived, the more, opposed no-restrictions immigration, did spend a lot of time in Japan. He was interested to learn from them.

    (That nobody translates Sarrazin is a big miracle for me. There could be money in a translation. This man is great. And a very good writer, too. It's a pleasure, really, to read his books. I don't understand, why nobody does want to earn the money, that you could earn with the English translation of Sarrazins books?!

    (And then there is this idealistical thought: Where are the Americans, who just want to know, whats going on? - Sarrazin has a lot to say about our current affairs -worldwide! - -

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  179. Bill B. says:
    @Third world nationalist
    Lee Kuan Yew was an advocate of mass migration. It is mostly because of his foreign talent policy that Singapore is overcrowded and filled with foreigners.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIeIzGt8rQ0

    “Harry” was an advocate of maintaining a large workforce – even at the cost of high immigration – but he was a very strong advocate of this immigration being mostly ethnic Chinese.

    Singapore ferociously monitors and controls ethnic population levels.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Third world nationalist
    A lot of the commentators here are anti migration because they don't like the changing racial demographics. I'm anti migration not because of race, but because of the other negative consequences that migration brings, like increased competition for jobs, lower wages, over priced property and overcrowding. If singapore's population was 1 million, there would be a lot of benefits for the people here, though those benefits cannot be quantified by GDP.
    , @Anonymous
    Does Malaysia still claim Singapore? There were constant invasion scares in the early years of the city's independence. A large population is a national security issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  180. @Twinkie

    Then your friends are fools, for it was neither unsustainable nor unjust.
     
    You are something. First, you claim to predict the demography three hundred years into the future with considerable conviction. Now, you insult my friends who actually grew up and lived through the turbulence of RSA and, in your great wisdom, claim to know more about the Apartheid than these "fools" as you called them.

    I think we are done.

    I think we are done.

    I think you are just looking for excuses to bow out of a debate you can’t hold your own in.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  181. @Twinkie

    expect the latter race to survive, especially once the latter race’s % of the population drops below 80% to 90%. At that point, you would have to stop all immigration immediately. Even then, the high-assimilation groups would eventually merge with the original race to create a new race. The original race would cease to exist like MP’s parrot.
     
    Let me ask you something. What is your definition of a white person? Someone with 99% European genetics? How about 75%?

    For a people to survive they simply must exclude other peoples. The Japanese and Israelis understand this, but, then, they are adults.
     
    Both of these groups of people are genetic hybrids, with the Israelis having comparatively VERY HIGH genetic diversity. What bind these respective peoples together as unitary nations are things such as common descent (not the same as genetic propinquity), shared history (very short in the case of Israel), and constructed self-conception as a people ("ideology" if you will).

    with the Israelis having comparatively VERY HIGH genetic diversity.

    Exactly. You walk down the smallest Israeli town and it’s hard to know what country you’re in, what with all those Chinese, Indians, Mestizos and Africans everywhere, so VERY HIGH is Israel’s diversity.

    Kidding aside, the point is generally correct that Israel could not convincingly be described as a monoracial country, at least not in the same sense as historically monoracial countries could have been called monoracial. (Eg Britain, Nigeria, Korea). But even though there are some considerable differences, the great bulk of the population could be described as a mixture of white and west asian, quite closely resembling the populations of, say, Armenia and Georgia. Only the existence of Ethiopian Jews shatters this picture of relative racial uniformity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  182. Twinkie says:
    @attilathehen
    "By the way, my wife is white and my children are half-white. Their children, my future grand children, will likely be three-quarters white." Or they will most likely be Asian or black. You cannot tell your non-white children to marry whites. You are a Japanese Derbyshire.

    Or they will most likely be Asian or black. You cannot tell your non-white children to marry whites.

    But *you* can predict that *my* children – whom you have never met – will marry “Asian” or “black.” So I don’t know my kids, but you do. I can’t tell whether you are dumb or crazy.

    First of all, people of my ethnicity born in America marry whites at rates between 50-70%. And that’s people who are entirely of my ethnicity. My children are only half that. The other half is white.

    Second, half-white/half-Asian Americans tend to identify as whites and marry them.

    Third, among my children, only my oldest (he is a boy) is allowed to date. His girlfriend is a gorgeous blonde. They’ve known each other since they were seven. They played house, and went through First Communion and Confirmation together. My wife and I know the family very well. He’ll probably marry her one day. He told me so since he was nine, and – adorably – has been saving for a “starter home” for the two of them since then.

    Unlike some of you malcontents who grasp at online straws with this white nationalism fantasy, my family and I belong to a real, actual, functioning community of people who belong to the same parish, educate our children together, share similar moral values, and are close friends. We derive much of our sense of identity from these communitarian ties and pleasures of friendship, rather than some outlandish notion that separating people by race is going to magically solve what ails the country and its population.

    You are a Japanese Derbyshire.

    Er, no. Derbyshire doesn’t believe in God and certainly doesn’t attend church. I am a traditional Catholic who homeschools his children in Christian ethics and Western canon. And I never wrote that I was Japanese.

    Read More
    • Agree: Desiderius
    • Replies: @Anon
    This is a very personal question and you don't have to answer but do you think any of your children will have vocations to the priesthood or religious life? Of course they may be young enough that the question is unanswerable.
    , @attilathehen
    That's only one kid and he still's young. You still don't know. No way 1/2 of your kind marry white. I live in an area with lots of hapas and they marry Asians/blacks/Jews. You're dreaming.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  183. Anon • Disclaimer says:
    @Twinkie

    Or they will most likely be Asian or black. You cannot tell your non-white children to marry whites.
     
    But *you* can predict that *my* children - whom you have never met - will marry "Asian" or "black." So I don't know my kids, but you do. I can't tell whether you are dumb or crazy.

    First of all, people of my ethnicity born in America marry whites at rates between 50-70%. And that's people who are entirely of my ethnicity. My children are only half that. The other half is white.

    Second, half-white/half-Asian Americans tend to identify as whites and marry them.

    Third, among my children, only my oldest (he is a boy) is allowed to date. His girlfriend is a gorgeous blonde. They've known each other since they were seven. They played house, and went through First Communion and Confirmation together. My wife and I know the family very well. He'll probably marry her one day. He told me so since he was nine, and - adorably - has been saving for a "starter home" for the two of them since then.

    Unlike some of you malcontents who grasp at online straws with this white nationalism fantasy, my family and I belong to a real, actual, functioning community of people who belong to the same parish, educate our children together, share similar moral values, and are close friends. We derive much of our sense of identity from these communitarian ties and pleasures of friendship, rather than some outlandish notion that separating people by race is going to magically solve what ails the country and its population.

    You are a Japanese Derbyshire.
     
    Er, no. Derbyshire doesn't believe in God and certainly doesn't attend church. I am a traditional Catholic who homeschools his children in Christian ethics and Western canon. And I never wrote that I was Japanese.

    This is a very personal question and you don’t have to answer but do you think any of your children will have vocations to the priesthood or religious life? Of course they may be young enough that the question is unanswerable.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    YES. A couple of my children have expressed a very strong interest in religious life. One of them has even talked about being a martyr for the faith... since age five.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  184. @Dieter Kief

    open global economy, but also our liberal, democratic order swept away by the backlash wrought by the blind spots and excesses of this mindset
     
    Ok - there are blind spots and excesses of the internationalist open border mindset. That's a point to start a reasonable discussion from.

    Then there has always been Isiah Berlin as a proponent of the antion-state. Very stange, what happened to him.

    Thilo Sarrazin, the fondest - (European !?) critic of Dani Radrik's "blind spots" and "excesses" of internationalism has two main points.

    1) Not everybody fits in quite nicely everywhere (that one is against unregulated migration).


    2) Some developed countries might have reached the point, where gains in lower prices for goods and services via international markets are now countered by rising costs for unemployment, because of all the factories and services, that keep being shifted to places where they are cheaper than - at home.
    This one is is a against unregulated trade, basically and hints at import-taxes and such measures Trump is speaking abut too, here and there).

    Then there has always been Isiah Berlin as a proponent of the antion-state. Very stange, what happened to him.

    What did happen to him?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dieter Kief
    He morphed into a non-entity, a far as I can see.

    I at times use him as a weapon, when European defenders of the nation state like philosopher Peter Sloterdijk and first-rate Goethe-biographer Rüdiger Safranski are called - you know: Nazis.

    In such situations, its very useful to refer to Issiah Berlin, - because, you know: It's let's say: A tad inappropriate - - - to call Issiah Berlin: A Nazi...

    But, as so often: The discussion does not progress form there, but comes to a halt.

    - People then seem to enter a state, where they prefer to say nothing. - Their logic then: If you are stuck in a situation where you can't think of a way to attack the proponents of national borders as Nazis, there might as well something really spooky be going on - something dangerous or frightening even, and it might be much safer, to just shut up, - - - and wait for the next chance, to call an opponent (especially, if he's a defender of borders!) a Nazi, which usually waits - just around the bend anyhow...

    - If I were a young political scíentist, I'd work these days on Ulf-Dieter Klemm (cf. his work on Greece), Hans-Werner Sinn, Sarrazin, Mill and Berlin.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  185. Ian M. says:
    @Nick Diaz
    Now this is rich. Trying to ascribe the enormous scientific and economic progress over the last two centuries to nation-states, when in reality such progress is due to the values of the Enlightnment. There were nation-states before the XVIIIth century, like the Parthian Empire and Han China, and yet there was very little scientific and cultural progress during that time. The Byzantine Empire was also a classic nation-state, and yet for some 400 years it stagnated and had nothing to show for.

    In fact, strong nation-states has historically been at odds with entrepeuners, scientists and artists, and tried to blot progress because it didn't fit their nationalist ideology. The classic example is Nazi Germany, where art, science and industry were controlled by the state, and any type of contribution had to be analysed on the grounds of whether it was "Aryan", "Germanic" or not. The U.S.S.R was a strong nation-state, with all the characteristics of a strong nation-state, from national borders to a national army, and yet it ended capitalist freedom. Trying to say that nationalism is responsible for the success of capitalism and science is asinine and easily refuted by the historical evidence.

    No, the progress of the last two centuries were due to the Enlightnment values of personal freedom, rationalism and a limited government. In fact, the countries that progressed the most were those that gave individuals the highest degree of freedom and were the least nationalistic, like England and France. The strong nation-states with lesser personal freedom, like Prussia and Tsarist Russia, took much longer to develop.

    Of course, Sailer completely glosses over the *tragedy* that nationalism causes. Roughly 80% of all wars are caused by nationalism, with the other 20% being caused by religion. In the XXth century alone, nationalism killed some 100 million human beings. Just WWII alone had an estimated death toll of some 55 million people. I guess Sailer finds the death of tens of millions of young men a small price to pay in exchange for his contrived and poorly substantiated argument that nationalism fosters economic and scientific progress. I know that, to conservatives, the lives of young men are disposable cannon fodder to be sacrificed in the altar of national greatness - and Sailer has expressed sympathy for the military draft -, but I think otherwise. As Einstein once said:

    "Nationalism is the cancer of Mankind."



    And, of course, Sailer and his minions don't really understand what globalisation is. It is not some "conspiracy" on the part of plutocrats to destroy the nation-state; rather, globalisation is a process that has been going on since the late Pleistocene era some 30,000 years go, when the first tribes of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers decided to trade with other tribes for mutual benefit. Tribes eventually coalesced into fixed communities with the development of agriculture at the beggining of the Neolithic era, to the formation of the first city-state by the end of the Copper age some 7,000 years ago , to eventually nation-states and empires.

    Globalisation is the progression of that. Simple as that. It is fostered by the development of technology, and has nothing to do with politics. As communications and transporations technology develops, business, that before could only be done locally or nationally, can now be done globally. It is simply the result of more advanced science. Just like the development of agriculture allowed for the formation of the first settled communities, and city-states, the development of roads allowed for distant communities to coalesce into nations with large territories, now the massive growth of communications technology has shrunk the World even more. Globalisation is a technological process that has been going on since the Pleistocene, but Sailer and his minions cannot connect the dots. In fact, Sailer and his minions have demonstrated an amazing inability to connect the dots. It's a good thing that I am here to think for them. Someone has to do it.

    What we are actually going through with globalisation at this stage is that we are progressing to becoming a Type I civilization in the Kardashev Scale. The internet, for instance, is a global communication platform. A Type I civilization is a global unified civilization that harnesses all the energy and productive capacity of a planet. With the development of thermonuclear weapons in the 1950's, the obsolescence of nation-states became a matter of time. Thermonuclear weapons make national borders redundant, and represent a risk of global catastrophe. Eventually, a one World government will be needed to avoid mass extinction, as terrorists will soon be able to make these weapons. With the development of communications technology, the nation-state became obsolete economically as well.

    Deal with it: you guys are living fossils, as well as your ideas. The World you want is not sustainable in the long-run. It's either globalisation or mass extinction or stagnation. In fact, we might not make it. Maybe the development of a global society will lose out to nationalism, and eventually these nation-states, all armed with nukes and wanting to uphold their national interests, will simply erradicate the human species.

    I truly hope people like you lose out in the end. For the good of Mankind.

    I actually think there is some truth to what you say. For example, I think globalism is in large part driven by technology and is part of a longer process that’s been going on for eons, although I wouldn’t reduce it to that factor alone.

    Roughly 80% of all wars are caused by nationalism, with the other 20% being caused by religion.

    People are always going to fight over what they regard as most important, whether that be their religion or their nation or something else. The only way to avoid this is for people to become indifferent and apathetic, a state of affairs the atomization caused by liberalism is doing a great job generating. But a world where there is nothing about which people care enough to fight for and sacrifice for is not a world I particularly look forward to.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  186. Corvinus says:
    @silviosilver

    Corvinus seeks to muddy the waters. I have no idea what motivates him, but I do know his tactics. He’s not a honest participant.
     
    I've known that for a long time. I generally never respond to him, however this time I used opportunity to reemphasize a few points.

    I may disagree (somewhat) with Twinkie, but he’s honest and make sincere points.
     
    Who can ever know what lies inside anti-white hearts? It's the easiest thing in the world to come across as sincere and principled as you deny whites the rights to the vital living conditions necessary for long-term racial existence. I don't call Twinkie intentionally anti-white. I don't imagine he's out to hound and harass whites. Perhaps something inside him does feel a tinge of regret that whites shall, in due course, be wiped from the face of the earth. I mean, think of it, it is the sort of event that could induce such feelings: an entire branch of humankind, gone, never to be seen or heard again. Yet, when all is said and done, his answer remains a firm "no" - sorry, white man, can't help you.

    Perhaps there really is no hope. You could hardly fault someone for thinking so. After all, we live in a time when most whites eagerly heap misery after misery upon themselves, operating under the monumental delusion that it's beneficial and the right thing to do anyway. All important channels of communication are denied those who'd point out that it is a delusion. Requests that social arrangements be altered to allow whites to live on are treated as the very height of immorality, or at least are perceived as requiring such momentous upheaval that it's deemed too a high a price to pay. In the mean time, white numbers are dwindling, black numbers are soaring, with no end in sight. It's clearly tempting to throw the towel in and allow cruel fate to take its course.

    But then I pose this thought experiment. Imagine it's the year 2217, and China has had more than a century of sitting pretty at the top of the world. Alas, the Chinese have succumbed to "anti-racism" and allowed their homeland to be flooded with mass immigration. Race-mixing is rampant and there are fewer Chinese born with every passing year. Some far-sighted pro-Chinese activists point out that if these trends continue, the Chinese will vanish; and they propose certain measures that, if implemented, would allow Chinese people to live on. Now I ask myself, if I, as a non-Chinese, were living in China at that time, could I really bring myself to tell the Chinese, hell no, no way, what you are proposing is outrageously immoral? I just can't see that being my reaction. I think I would weigh up their proposal and realize that its implementation would not come at any truly essential cost to me - I wouldn't be deported, I'd be able to continue living under the Chinese legal and cultural regime that I know and value. All that would change is that there would now be certain parts of the land off-limits to me. To this, I could tell myself that I was never going to visit every single part of China anyway; that I already mentally block off certain parts of town that hold no interest for me and which I consequently never set foot in - so all that would change now is the reason why I never set foot in certain parts town/province/region whatever. "Ghastly" is virtually the last word I'd use to describe these changes. All told, I could see myself quite easily acquiescing to these requests.

    Obviously my point is that if I could acquiesce in that putative China, non-whites could acquiesce in contemporary America. The greatest difficulty here would be trust. Pro-whites, historically, are not known for seeking such reasonable accommodations. Their demands, on the contrary, have varied between "kill 'em all" and "send 'em all back." So it's quite understandable that non-whites would have a hard time trusting any white who disavowed such harsh measures. It's like "Yeah, you're saying that now, but if I give you your own territory, you're gonna use the time to organize and in twenty years you're gonna come gunning for me." We can see this effect in Israel. One reason Israelis have had such a hard time trusting the Palestinians is that the PLO for the longest time demanded the destruction of Israel. When the PLO changed its tune and claimed to be willing to settle for a two-state solution, very few Israelis believed they were sincere. (Of course, historically, it has been Israelis swindling Palestinians, not the other way around.) So while I think it is indeed possible that non-whites could acquiesce to pro-white racial reform - or even actively support it - there is a great deal of confidence-building that needs to take place first.

    “Who can ever know what lies inside anti-white hearts? It’s the easiest thing in the world to come across as sincere and principled as you deny whites the rights to the vital living conditions necessary for long-term racial existence.”

    You continue to argue from the false premises that 1) there are systemic, systematic efforts by groups of people to wipe out the white race; 2) white people who neglect to realize that they are in mortal danger of their racial existence are contributing to their racial demise, and 3) certain white people are being denied the liberty to live how they prefer to live, chiefly among their “own kind”.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  187. @Bill B.
    "Harry" was an advocate of maintaining a large workforce - even at the cost of high immigration - but he was a very strong advocate of this immigration being mostly ethnic Chinese.

    Singapore ferociously monitors and controls ethnic population levels.

    A lot of the commentators here are anti migration because they don’t like the changing racial demographics. I’m anti migration not because of race, but because of the other negative consequences that migration brings, like increased competition for jobs, lower wages, over priced property and overcrowding. If singapore’s population was 1 million, there would be a lot of benefits for the people here, though those benefits cannot be quantified by GDP.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  188. Ian M. says:
    @silviosilver
    My suspicion was that you were willfully evading addressing Citizen of a Silly Country's racial concerns (by talking about cultural concerns). If this was not done willfully, then I retract the accusation. But the point does indeed remain that you were not addressing his concerns.

    Second, people of European origins are not about to go extinct.
     
    What causes racial extinction? The failure of a race to reproduce itself. This can happen because members of the race fail to have sufficient children or because they have too many children with members of other races. If either of these occurs for long enough, racial extinction must necessarily ensue. Whether your statement above can be deemed reasonable or not depends on what time frame your use of "about" implies. If you mean in the next ten years, no clearly not. Not even in the next hundred. But if you extrapolate out from present trends, it's hardly fanciful to imagine that in two or three hundred years whites will be effectively extinct - ie reduced to 1% or less of the population in their ancestral territories, with ongoing racial intermixture ensuring that even this pitiful remainder will not be permanently maintained. If you want to argue that at some future point some intervention will become possible that would allow whites to avoid complete racial extinction, my question must be why wait until then? And if, as you hint, it's already "too late" to do anything to secure white racial existence, then it's difficult to see how or why this should suddenly become easier in the future.

    Whites today are in a situation in which too few whites are having children, and of those who are having children, too few are having them with other whites. Unless this is reversed, whites will indeed go extinct. It will not happen within our lifetimes, but people who care about their racial existence understandably ask why it must be permitted to occur ever? Why must it be permitted to occur if preventing it would not necessarily compromise or jeopardize any other group's vital racial or cultural interests?

    What, really, is so offensive about the white desire to racially live on? Is it that you and your offspring's freedom or right to interact with white people might be somewhat (perhaps not completely) curtailed? This would not be an uncommon reaction. In fact, outrage by non-whites that their lives might be inconvenienced by whites deciding to live on rather than die off, replete with thunderous denunciations of the alleged "racism" behind this motivation, is probably the most common reaction. This is so even when the whites in question strain to reassure the non-whites in question that they have no intention of "sending them home" or inconveniencing them beyond the minimum degree necessary to secure their own racial existence - generally meaning that some parts of America or the world (but not all parts) must necessarily becomes off-limits to non-whites, just as some parts would become off-limits to whites and other non-whites - that anything and everything that can be done and that is consistent with the accomplishment of this goal and with the minimization of disruption to non-white well-being, including the provision of compensation where that disruption exceeds some level, should be done. Such assurances do strangely little to quench the outrage.

    I am much more concerned about preserving my country – which is an actual tangible, physical entity – and its traditional institutions and culture, in other words its civilization
     
    Those things are virtually the anti-thesis of "tangible" and "physical." If lost, they can be resurrected in a way that a race - which is actually physical and tangible - cannot be.

    Finally, my concern is largely about my nation-state – the United States of America and her people as constituted today (the current “shareholders” of the country, to borrow Mr. Sailer’s metaphor).
     
    Then you are shit out of luck. Because the policies and trends already in place guarantee that the United States of America as constituted today will not be so constituted tomorrow, and will be even less and less so with each passing year.

    Those things [a country and its traditional institutions] are virtually the anti-thesis of “tangible” and “physical.” If lost, they can be resurrected in a way that a race – which is actually physical and tangible – cannot be.

    ‘Physical’ and ‘tangible’ are not the best descriptors of a country, true. But a country is a concrete, particular entity. (And the territory of a country is often marked by tangible, physical features in a way that the boundaries of a race are not).

    Race, considered in itself, is an abstraction (like humanity).

    Both are real.

    If a country is destroyed, it cannot be resurrected.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver

    If a country is destroyed, it cannot be resurrected.
     
    How so?

    Its language, its institutions, its traditions all seem amenable to resurrection. Isn't this pretty much what Israel accomplished?

    Perhaps these features were not resurrected in precisely the identical form in which they once existed, but each succeeding generation was going to make various alterations to them anyway. Close-enough-is-good-enough seems appropriate here.

    Otherwise, one can quickly get silly with all this. I'm sure you think both you now and you at age five are the "same individual," but if I asked you to explain in virtue of what, precisely, this is true, I think you would struggle. This, of course, would be a most unreasonable standard.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  189. Nick Diaz says:
    @silviosilver

    Peo0ple of different races at Harvard are polite and civilized to each other.
     
    The sad thing is that, thanks to affirmative action, it's entirely possible that this "Nick Diaz" kid is/was at Harvard. (Entirely possible he's Latino too - he certainly has the classic Latino contempt for the lower social orders.) He is far from a moron, clearly, but Harvard material? Not by a long shot.

    LOL, being shown spite from a lowly life form such as yourself is amusing to me. My dad went to Harvard. I was accepted into Harvard, but chose to study chemical engineering at a top university instead. I earned my masters in chemical engineering before turning 22. What about you? You probably have barely a high school level of education – judging from your posts. The reason for your anger is simply because you cannot refute anything that I wrote. Resorting to ad hominem invective is the last refuge of a coward.

    Read More
    • Replies: @silviosilver
    I already dealt with your arguments in posts other than the one you're responding to here. This post was just an observation about the sad state of affairs today.

    I'm sorry if all the IQ talk around these parts has left you feeling a tad insecure. Calling other people "unintelligent" because they disagree with your views is not the most appropriate way to deal with these feelings.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  190. Nick Diaz says:
    @Svigor

    Now this is rich. Trying to ascribe the enormous scientific and economic progress over the last two centuries to nation-states, when in reality such progress is due to the values of the Enlightnment.
     
    You can't even spell "Enlightenment."

    Nation-states at least have the advantage of being composed of people who are actually responsible for all human discovery and innovation.

    What are the values of the Enlightenment made up of, and how many discoveries or innovations have they made?

    In fact, strong nation-states has historically been at odds with entrepeuners, scientists and artists, and tried to blot progress because it didn’t fit their nationalist ideology. The classic example is Nazi Germany, where art, science and industry were controlled by the state, and any type of contribution had to be analysed on the grounds of whether it was “Aryan”, “Germanic” or not.
     
    You left out the part where Nazi Germany's progress was retarded. Insofar as it was, the loss was about people (say, Jewish physicists), and not values, and I doubt they lost any sleep about the loss of art, for example. In fact, I seem to recall Germany gaining quite a lot of art, during their expansionist phase. As for science and industry, they had a pretty good run there, too.

    I think America and her stupid communism (AKA leftism, AKA liberalism, AKA progressivism) is more instructive. We could have been on Mars by now, but we chose Diversity and the attendant welfare state instead.

    The U.S.S.R was a strong nation-state, with all the characteristics of a strong nation-state, from national borders to a national army, and yet it ended capitalist freedom. Trying to say that nationalism is responsible for the success of capitalism and science is asinine and easily refuted by the historical evidence.
     
    Yeah, run by fiercely anti-racist, anti-nationalist, anti-HBD, globalists. The only reason they closed their borders was because they turned all of their territory into a jail. Great example of nationalism.

    No, the progress of the last two centuries were due to the Enlightnment values of personal freedom, rationalism and a limited government.
     
    (You still can't spell "Enlightenment.")

    That seems anti-Chinese to me, in addition to being anti-human (giving credit to "values" for human accomplishments).

    “Nationalism is the cancer of Mankind.”
     
    You spelled Leftism wrong. Leftists murdered well over 100 million people in the 20th century alone. All in the name of equalitarianism, anti-racism, anti-HBD, anti-nationalism, etc. No other ideology comes close to that kind of virulence.

    “You can’t even spell “Enlightenment.””

    Congratulations on being capable of using a spell-checker. My 5 year-old niece can do the same. Pointing out orthographic mistakes from your opponent is the lowest you can go try to appear smarter than him. I could misspell a billion words and I would still be smarter than you. BTW, you have misspelled words too.

    “Nation-states at least have the advantage of being composed of people who are actually responsible for all human discovery and innovation.”

    A blanket statement that means literally nothing. Progress has been made, mostly, by individuals and voluntary associations of individuals(corporations). There is no evidence whatsoever that nation-states are either responsible for progress or that they have fostered progress.

    “What are the values of the Enlightenment made up of, and how many discoveries or innovations have they made?”

    Scientific rationalism, individualism, tolerance for individual differences and individual and property rights. I think that you are playing dumb here. Of course values do not make discoveries; but these values are what allowed people to make discoveries and innovations.

    “You left out the part where Nazi Germany’s progress was retarded. Insofar as it was, the loss was about people (say, Jewish physicists), and not values, and I doubt they lost any sleep about the loss of art, for example. In fact, I seem to recall Germany gaining quite a lot of art, during their expansionist phase. As for science and industry, they had a pretty good run there, too.”

    That is the whole point: the Jewish scientists left Germany because the people in power valued “race” more than individuals, and did not respect individual rights of all irrespective of race. Redundant argumentation.

    “I think America and her stupid communism (AKA leftism, AKA liberalism, AKA progressivism) is more instructive. We could have been on Mars by now, but we chose Diversity and the attendant welfare state instead.”

    What evidence do you have that we could have reached Mars now? Many of the scientists that worked on the Apollo Project were foreign, and would not have been allowed to immigrate if a strong conservative government were in power.

    “Yeah, run by fiercely anti-racist, anti-nationalist, anti-HBD, globalists. The only reason they closed their borders was because they turned all of their territory into a jail. Great example of nationalism.”

    Ok. Nazi Germany was run by nationalist government that valued race and was not globalist, and it was still a disaster. My point stands.

    “(You still can’t spell “Enlightenment.”)”

    You can’t form a cogent argument. I guess we are even.

    “That seems anti-Chinese to me, in addition to being anti-human (giving credit to “values” for human accomplishments).”

    China progressed the most when the emperors allowed individual freedom. It all changed when Shi Huang Di centralized government and eliminated individual freedom. China stagnated for 600 years.

    “You spelled Leftism wrong. Leftists murdered well over 100 million people in the 20th century alone. All in the name of equalitarianism, anti-racism, anti-HBD, anti-nationalism, etc. No other ideology comes close to that kind of virulence.”

    Leftism did not murder 100 million people. That is a myth. Of course, you gloss over Nazi Germany, a regime that gassed 6 million people, with over a million being little kids, and worked another 14 million to death. At least the communists had a more fair and universal morality, while the Nazis upheld some races as better than others. That is far more odious in my estimation, since you have no say in what ethnicity you are born into Also, what has leftism got to do with anything? Even if communists had killed 100 million people, the fact is that around 80% of wars are caused by nationalism. My point stands

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  191. Twinkie says:
    @Anon
    This is a very personal question and you don't have to answer but do you think any of your children will have vocations to the priesthood or religious life? Of course they may be young enough that the question is unanswerable.

    YES. A couple of my children have expressed a very strong interest in religious life. One of them has even talked about being a martyr for the faith… since age five.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  192. @Bill B.
    Pity Sarrazin isn't published in English.

    I read a paper that I cannot at this moment put my hands on that, as well as pointing out that globalization is increasingly proving not beneficial to Western populations, elites aside, noted that in a globalized, loose-border world there is every reason to suppose that the majority of developed nation populations will not gain much either.

    There is no market god to distribute the wealth creation evenly and that when the "country" is the whole world selected places will do well and other places will be ignored. So hypothetically a Thailand may be a quite engaged second/third tier participant in glob-world but Myanmar/wherever may be trailing because (resources aside) glob-world finds other places more convenient.

    And by extension even a "successful" place like Thailand will not rise up evenly but will forever be a half-developed place.

    Borders are useful. Especially if behind those borders are governments with the sincere long-term interests of their own populations at heart.

    Borders are useful. Especially if behind those borders are governments with the sincere long-term interests of their own populations at heart.

    I have the idea that Japan could be one of those governments.
    Helmut Schmidt – who the longer he lived, the more, opposed no-restrictions immigration, did spend a lot of time in Japan. He was interested to learn from them.

    (That nobody translates Sarrazin is a big miracle for me. There could be money in a translation. This man is great. And a very good writer, too. It’s a pleasure, really, to read his books. I don’t understand, why nobody does want to earn the money, that you could earn with the English translation of Sarrazins books?!

    (And then there is this idealistical thought: Where are the Americans, who just want to know, whats going on? – Sarrazin has a lot to say about our current affairs -worldwide! – -

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  193. @Desiderius


    Then there has always been Isiah Berlin as a proponent of the antion-state. Very stange, what happened to him.
     
    What did happen to him?

    He morphed into a non-entity, a far as I can see.

    I at times use him as a weapon, when European defenders of the nation state like philosopher Peter Sloterdijk and first-rate Goethe-biographer Rüdiger Safranski are called – you know: Nazis.

    In such situations, its very useful to refer to Issiah Berlin, – because, you know: It’s let’s say: A tad inappropriate – – – to call Issiah Berlin: A Nazi…

    But, as so often: The discussion does not progress form there, but comes to a halt.

    - People then seem to enter a state, where they prefer to say nothing. – Their logic then: If you are stuck in a situation where you can’t think of a way to attack the proponents of national borders as Nazis, there might as well something really spooky be going on – something dangerous or frightening even, and it might be much safer, to just shut up, – – – and wait for the next chance, to call an opponent (especially, if he’s a defender of borders!) a Nazi, which usually waits – just around the bend anyhow…

    - If I were a young political scíentist, I’d work these days on Ulf-Dieter Klemm (cf. his work on Greece), Hans-Werner Sinn, Sarrazin, Mill and Berlin.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  194. @Twinkie

    Or they will most likely be Asian or black. You cannot tell your non-white children to marry whites.
     
    But *you* can predict that *my* children - whom you have never met - will marry "Asian" or "black." So I don't know my kids, but you do. I can't tell whether you are dumb or crazy.

    First of all, people of my ethnicity born in America marry whites at rates between 50-70%. And that's people who are entirely of my ethnicity. My children are only half that. The other half is white.

    Second, half-white/half-Asian Americans tend to identify as whites and marry them.

    Third, among my children, only my oldest (he is a boy) is allowed to date. His girlfriend is a gorgeous blonde. They've known each other since they were seven. They played house, and went through First Communion and Confirmation together. My wife and I know the family very well. He'll probably marry her one day. He told me so since he was nine, and - adorably - has been saving for a "starter home" for the two of them since then.

    Unlike some of you malcontents who grasp at online straws with this white nationalism fantasy, my family and I belong to a real, actual, functioning community of people who belong to the same parish, educate our children together, share similar moral values, and are close friends. We derive much of our sense of identity from these communitarian ties and pleasures of friendship, rather than some outlandish notion that separating people by race is going to magically solve what ails the country and its population.

    You are a Japanese Derbyshire.
     
    Er, no. Derbyshire doesn't believe in God and certainly doesn't attend church. I am a traditional Catholic who homeschools his children in Christian ethics and Western canon. And I never wrote that I was Japanese.

    That’s only one kid and he still’s young. You still don’t know. No way 1/2 of your kind marry white. I live in an area with lots of hapas and they marry Asians/blacks/Jews. You’re dreaming.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  195. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Bill B.
    "Harry" was an advocate of maintaining a large workforce - even at the cost of high immigration - but he was a very strong advocate of this immigration being mostly ethnic Chinese.

    Singapore ferociously monitors and controls ethnic population levels.

    Does Malaysia still claim Singapore? There were constant invasion scares in the early years of the city’s independence. A large population is a national security issue.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  196. @Nick Diaz
    LOL, being shown spite from a lowly life form such as yourself is amusing to me. My dad went to Harvard. I was accepted into Harvard, but chose to study chemical engineering at a top university instead. I earned my masters in chemical engineering before turning 22. What about you? You probably have barely a high school level of education - judging from your posts. The reason for your anger is simply because you cannot refute anything that I wrote. Resorting to ad hominem invective is the last refuge of a coward.

    I already dealt with your arguments in posts other than the one you’re responding to here. This post was just an observation about the sad state of affairs today.

    I’m sorry if all the IQ talk around these parts has left you feeling a tad insecure. Calling other people “unintelligent” because they disagree with your views is not the most appropriate way to deal with these feelings.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  197. @Ian M.

    Those things [a country and its traditional institutions] are virtually the anti-thesis of “tangible” and “physical.” If lost, they can be resurrected in a way that a race – which is actually physical and tangible – cannot be.
     
    'Physical' and 'tangible' are not the best descriptors of a country, true. But a country is a concrete, particular entity. (And the territory of a country is often marked by tangible, physical features in a way that the boundaries of a race are not).

    Race, considered in itself, is an abstraction (like humanity).

    Both are real.

    If a country is destroyed, it cannot be resurrected.

    If a country is destroyed, it cannot be resurrected.

    How so?

    Its language, its institutions, its traditions all seem amenable to resurrection. Isn’t this pretty much what Israel accomplished?

    Perhaps these features were not resurrected in precisely the identical form in which they once existed, but each succeeding generation was going to make various alterations to them anyway. Close-enough-is-good-enough seems appropriate here.

    Otherwise, one can quickly get silly with all this. I’m sure you think both you now and you at age five are the “same individual,” but if I asked you to explain in virtue of what, precisely, this is true, I think you would struggle. This, of course, would be a most unreasonable standard.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ian M.

    Its language, its institutions, its traditions all seem amenable to resurrection. Isn’t this pretty much what Israel accomplished?
     
    A people can continue to exist after a nation has been destroyed. This is what has happened with Israel and the Jews: the Jews have continued to exist as a people (and retained their language (or rather, resurrected that), its institutions, and traditions), but the state of Israel is a new state, not identical with ancient Israel.

    It's like a family moving into a new house after its original house has been destroyed: even if the new house has been made as identical as possible to the original, it is still not the same house.

    I’m sure you think both you now and you at age five are the “same individual,” but if I asked you to explain in virtue of what, precisely, this is true, I think you would struggle.
     
    It's an interesting question. Actually though, I don't think it is difficult to explain this, but it would take a lot more than a combox reply fully to support it and defend it from objections. But simply and quickly: it's because my individual form has persisted, even while the matter of which I am composed changes and is completely different now from what it was at age five. In more religiously charged language, my soul has persisted. Animals and plants also have 'souls': they have forms that persist even while the matter they are composed of changes, and it is in virtue of this individual form that adult Fido is the same individual as the puppy Fido.

    (Form is what makes a thing what it is: for example, if I draw a triangle on a blackboard with chalk, the chalk is the matter of that particular triangle, but its matter does not determine what it is: I could have drawn a circle instead with the same chalk. Its form is that of a triangle.)

    To bring things full circle, a country also has a form. This form has to persist for a country to remain the same country. Once a nation is destroyed, its form is destroyed, just as when Fido dies, its form ceases to exist.

    I don't expect you or anyone else just to accept this account of things on my say-so, but that's a basic thumbnail sketch of what all the greatest thinkers roughly thought about the matter (heh) until about John Locke.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  198. Ian M. says:
    @silviosilver

    If a country is destroyed, it cannot be resurrected.
     
    How so?

    Its language, its institutions, its traditions all seem amenable to resurrection. Isn't this pretty much what Israel accomplished?

    Perhaps these features were not resurrected in precisely the identical form in which they once existed, but each succeeding generation was going to make various alterations to them anyway. Close-enough-is-good-enough seems appropriate here.

    Otherwise, one can quickly get silly with all this. I'm sure you think both you now and you at age five are the "same individual," but if I asked you to explain in virtue of what, precisely, this is true, I think you would struggle. This, of course, would be a most unreasonable standard.

    Its language, its institutions, its traditions all seem amenable to resurrection. Isn’t this pretty much what Israel accomplished?

    A people can continue to exist after a nation has been destroyed. This is what has happened with Israel and the Jews: the Jews have continued to exist as a people (and retained their language (or rather, resurrected that), its institutions, and traditions), but the state of Israel is a new state, not identical with ancient Israel.

    It’s like a family moving into a new house after its original house has been destroyed: even if the new house has been made as identical as possible to the original, it is still not the same house.

    I’m sure you think both you now and you at age five are the “same individual,” but if I asked you to explain in virtue of what, precisely, this is true, I think you would struggle.

    It’s an interesting question. Actually though, I don’t think it is difficult to explain this, but it would take a lot more than a combox reply fully to support it and defend it from objections. But simply and quickly: it’s because my individual form has persisted, even while the matter of which I am composed changes and is completely different now from what it was at age five. In more religiously charged language, my soul has persisted. Animals and plants also have ‘souls’: they have forms that persist even while the matter they are composed of changes, and it is in virtue of this individual form that adult Fido is the same individual as the puppy Fido.

    (Form is what makes a thing what it is: for example, if I draw a triangle on a blackboard with chalk, the chalk is the matter of that particular triangle, but its matter does not determine what it is: I could have drawn a circle instead with the same chalk. Its form is that of a triangle.)

    To bring things full circle, a country also has a form. This form has to persist for a country to remain the same country. Once a nation is destroyed, its form is destroyed, just as when Fido dies, its form ceases to exist.

    I don’t expect you or anyone else just to accept this account of things on my say-so, but that’s a basic thumbnail sketch of what all the greatest thinkers roughly thought about the matter (heh) until about John Locke.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  199. @attilathehen
    "...some Italian or Greek (to cite two typical punching bags) is going to resist having his status degraded to the point where some trailer park dweller... Italians/Greeks are whites." No will one will degrade their status. You're spewing nonsense. Nick Rahall a former politician from West Virginia was 1/2 Lebanese. No one questioned his racial acceptance. Ted Kennedy's widow Victoria Reggie is Lebanese and from Louisiana. No one questioned her ethnicity. On the other hand, Bobby Jindal is definitely not kosher. Neither was Obama. Asians (Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, et al.) are anti white. If they are 1/2 white, most of the time they will side with their Asian side. Derbyshire's Chinese offspring are an example. Obama dated a 1/2 Japanese, 1/2 Dutch woman who wound up marrying a Korean. Families naturally separate. Hispanics can be of any race, and they separate themselves. Todd Palin's great grandmother was an Eskimo, but he is not an Eskimo. Jews would be separated. They are not white and are anti-white. Separation is quite easy.

    I am talking about viewpoints that are expressed in these discussions on the internet, not what occurs in daily life. Most people in everyday life do not express anything like such viewpoints. If you think I am spouting nonsense, you clearly cannot have participated in may of these discussions, else you would know what I said was an accurate reflection of what goes on.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  200. Corvinus says:
    @Samuel Skinner

    White people are not Jews.
     
    Yes, we happen to be smarter. Which is why I trust their judgement.

    At a regional level with a particular group of people.
     
    Fortunately we know that this cannot be replicated at a larger level because... what?

    So you play the victim card here rather than fight for the white way of life.
     
    You do realize if you fight against overwhelming force, you die? Like, there are no more Carthaginians because the Romans slaughtered them. One man is nothing against the weight of the state.

    Those whites who live amongst or shack up with are not going to move merely because you prefer that they live with their own kind. They have the liberty to stay there.
     
    You don't mean liberty, you mean license. Liberty is for free men, for citizens. License is the cry of the parasite who wishes to benefit from society without acting in order to maintain it.

    No, you have the option to move to areas where white people reside. Form your own communities.
     
    Nope. If you live in the US, HUD exists to dump a bunch of black people in your neighborhood. Specifically the blacks that poor blacks work to get away from. There are also refugee resettlement programs and the state takes an active interest in integration (re: screwing poor whites).

    “Yes, we happen to be smarter. Which is why I trust their judgement.”

    You THINK you are smarter.

    “You don’t mean liberty, you mean license. Liberty is for free men, for citizens. License is the cry of the parasite who wishes to benefit from society without acting in order to maintain it.”

    No, I meant liberty. I used it in the proper context.

    “Nope. If you live in the US, HUD exists to dump a bunch of black people in your neighborhood.”

    That’s not how it works. Go back to bed and sleep it off.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  201. @silviosilver

    You and your Eurasian family would fit right in India. You don’t fit in the West.
     
    That's only true if you insist that a nation-state must be 100% monoracial and unadulterated. Perhaps there is a case for keeping nation-states that way if that was their original condition, but once the race becomes adulterated with racial admixture and the attendant human relationships (for every pairwise racial crossing there's probably four or five individuals who become inured against monoracialism ), hitting upon a politically viable sorting mechanism for who's in and who's out becomes nigh on impossible.

    It's all very well to dream up formulas about percentages and proportions - the province of pro-white fantasists for decades - but to make any of it stick you need political power. If your formulas are too restrictive, you won't gain the support of a great enough portion of the population (which goes for both democratic means or violent overthrow), because too much of that population will have either genetic, familial or friendship links with those whom your formula would exclude.

    This wasn't a problem in countries like 1930's Germany, say, because racial adulteration was too small too inure enough people against monoracialist exclusivity. But modern America long ago passed the point where such a strategy was viable, and western Europe today is at best at the threshold but will almost surely pass it before all is said and done.

    People respond negatively to racial sorting proposals for two main reasons. The first is their obvious arbitrariness. No matter how or where you draw the racial "line," there will always be some people who just as well stand inside of it as outside of it (or vice-versa). Say you come up with an airtight genetic formula that anyone with 95.46% such-and-such genes or greater is acceptable. Well, what of someone with only 95.45% such-and-such genes, is he seriously so unacceptable? Really? Most people would call BS on that. And it doesn't matter how far up or down you move the percentage, the same problem obtains.

    The other reason that people respond negatively is their perception of the costs of exclusion. Hardcore white racialist fanatics are prepared to completely devastate someone's livelihood if he doesn't racially fit the bill. They couldn't care less what becomes of him. Most people, however, are simply not that callous. They wouldn't dream of shipping someone like "Radical Center" off to India. Hell, they wouldn't even dream of sending blacks "back" to Africa. (And rightly so, I say.) If this what they perceive pro-white racialism requires, then they want no part of it.

    Any serious, mature pro-white racialism that wants to have a whiff of a chance of defending white racial interests and securing white racial existence - I mean actually defending and actually securing, not just larping - really has no choice but to take all this into account. Any pro-white movement that doesn't will have no more success than lunatic William Pierce's laughable "vanguardist" efforts of the 80s and 90s. Like it or not, it is what it is.

    You’re just another cuck. Racial separation is easy. You are making it hard. And these “whites” you speak of are mostly Jews. Nothing I wrote could be construed as Aryan Nationhood, Nazi type stuff.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?